# If God doesn't exist...



## Damaged Eagle

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## edthecynic

Damaged Eagle said:


> what kick started the universe?


Gravity.


----------



## DarkFury

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


*I can't PROVE it but I will just go along with Norman.
*


----------



## Socialist

Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.


----------



## BULLDOG

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****




Well no. It doesn't mean that at all. I suppose it is possible, but no more likely than thousands of other guesses.


----------



## there4eyeM

We should remember how our minds and our thinking are limited by our languages. This often leads to unsupportable assumptions and logic-loops. 
Since we cannot explain some things, especially something so important as existence, we force nouns and terms to fit our fears. The universe must have had a start, yet there must have been a precedent.
What makes us insist on that? Since we know that we don't know, how can we ask  the question, "what was before the beginning?", when the very question posits an oxymoron? There can be no "before the beginning". Yet, human thinking cannot tolerate, nor indeed digest, such a thought.
We need to let go more.
Or, we can just use 'God' as a metaphor to help us along until we grow into a fuller understanding.


----------



## cnm

Damaged Eagle said:


> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


So the meaning of ignorance is a miracle?

Yeah, you're a chucklehead all right.


----------



## IsaacNewton

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.


----------



## cnm

To which view of a monotheistic god Isaac Newton is said to have adhered, amusingly enough...


----------



## IsaacNewton

cnm said:


> To which view of a monotheistic god Isaac Newton is said to have adhered, amusingly enough...



Doesn't matter, there are many 'scientists' that claim to follow a god. Its pretty damn odd these days but Newton didn't know about evolution.

Not to mention in recent history it was not healthy to challenge the church so most of a scientific bent did not in public, though they did privately.

It doesn't matter where knowledge comes from as long as it is factual. The 'creation museum' has been losing visitors by the droves because they present false science and the public is tired of it. Fact doesn't support children playing on dinosaurs in real life.


----------



## there4eyeM

That there could be some presence in the universe humans could call 'spirit' is another possible metaphor. I have to admit I 'sense' 'something', but I truly hesitate to express much about it as I know I can't explain it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"If God doesn't exist..."

There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


----------



## cnm

IsaacNewton said:


> Doesn't matter, there are many 'scientists' that claim to follow a god. Its pretty damn odd these days but Newton didn't know about evolution.


He seemed to think the universe was created for our benefit.


----------



## PratchettFan

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


 
The answer is that we don't know, which only means that we don't know.  If that is something some can't deal with, then "God did it" is as good as any other guess.


----------



## there4eyeM

Onegod, dogone!


----------



## Taz

That science hasn't yet figured out everything doesn't point to a god.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Taz said:


> That science hasn't yet figured out everything doesn't point to a god.


 the science yet can not yet predict what the weather can be 6 days from now

Yet the man made global climate change cult thinks they can predict the weather 100 years from now.

All I know, no atheist in Fox holes and no one I ever heard of on their death bed say I pray to nothing for just one last breath


----------



## pinqy

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....



Science does not hold the answer to all questions. Science is a method, not a depository.  200 years ago "science" didn't know how the sun worked. That didn't mean it was a god just because science didn't have the answer.


----------



## pinqy

bear513 said:


> All I know, no atheist in Fox holes and no one I ever heard of on their death bed say I pray to nothing for just one last breath


Plenty of atheists in foxholes.  I was one.


----------



## Wyatt earp

pinqy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I know, no atheist in Fox holes and no one I ever heard of on their death bed say I pray to nothing for just one last breath
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of atheists in foxholes.  I was one.
Click to expand...

 post here when you are on your death bed.....and let me know what you think then .

It would be very interesting, if you felt the same as today.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Seriously I would love to hear it if you are going to go out stubborn and not believe in any higher power...


----------



## anwin

Hi everyone,

Infinite regress is a problem not just with the idea of God. Its a problem with any idea of a beginning.  The Singularity that the universe is said to have begun with, also needs to be explained.....and that can take us into infinite regress.

I agree that religious mythology and varied images of God need not be taken seriously....but the idea of Consciousness being the fundamental cause of creation has its takers in scientific circles. Check out Participatory Anthropic Principle of John wheeler.

Best wishes

anwin


----------



## pinqy

bear513 said:


> Seriously I would love to hear it if you are going to go out stubborn and not believe in any higher power...


"Stubborn?"  How does being on one's deathbed change the arguments?  Or are you claiming that atheists secretly do believe in god but don't want to admit it?


----------



## PratchettFan

bear513 said:


> Seriously I would love to hear it if you are going to go out stubborn and not believe in any higher power...


 Stubborn has nothing to do with it. You cannot believe what you do not believe.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.









So with all of infinity to play with the universe is all of a definitive 13.7 billion years old? Nothing happened prior to that and once it all collapses in on itself, if it does, nothing will be happening afterward either..... Seems kinda' pointless to continue doesn't it?

And who's saying that God waited around for 13.7 billion years for some puny insignificant bipedal species to suddenly appear?

As for saying 'we don't know yet'.... You do realize what the definition of a miracle is don't you?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

pinqy said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science does not hold the answer to all questions. Science is a method, not a depository.  200 years ago "science" didn't know how the sun worked. That didn't mean it was a god just because science didn't have the answer.
Click to expand...







And yet in it's arrogance science created a creation theology to deny that some higher power might exist.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## amrchaos

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

*Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with all of infinity to play with the universe is all of a definitive 13.7 billion years old? Nothing happened prior to that and once it all collapses in on itself, if it does, nothing will be happening afterward either..... Seems kinda' pointless to continue doesn't it?
> 
> And who's saying that God waited around for 13.7 billion years for some puny insignificant bipedal species to suddenly appear?
> 
> As for saying 'we don't know yet'.... You do realize what the definition of a miracle is don't you?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


We only know of the age of the current universe, what came before, if anything is not known...yet. And there are various theories on what the final end of this universe will be. It may continue to expand into infinity and all the stars burn out, leaving the universe cold and dark. Or there may be a mechanism that causes it to collapse again, perhaps into another big bang, something of a causality loop.

Your position is there is a god? Which one? How do you know?

There is no evidence of any god. You people that believe in one, produce the evidence and I'll be on board. Of course that doesn't mean only the 'christian' god. There are 4,000 other entities that people claim is THE god.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

amrchaos said:


> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?








That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.

My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.

Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with all of infinity to play with the universe is all of a definitive 13.7 billion years old? Nothing happened prior to that and once it all collapses in on itself, if it does, nothing will be happening afterward either..... Seems kinda' pointless to continue doesn't it?
> 
> And who's saying that God waited around for 13.7 billion years for some puny insignificant bipedal species to suddenly appear?
> 
> As for saying 'we don't know yet'.... You do realize what the definition of a miracle is don't you?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We only know of the age of the current universe, what came before, if anything is not known...yet. And there are various theories on what the final end of this universe will be. It may continue to expand into infinity and all the stars burn out, leaving the universe cold and dark. Or there may be a mechanism that causes it to collapse again, perhaps into another big bang, something of a causality loop.
> 
> Your position is there is a god? Which one? How do you know?
> 
> There is no evidence of any god. You people that believe in one, produce the evidence and I'll be on board. Of course that doesn't mean only the 'christian' god. There are 4,000 other entities that people claim is THE god.
Click to expand...







I'm well aware of the various theories about the various possible futures of the universe. I'm also noting that you're avoiding answering any of my questions. However I will answer your question(s)...

Because you experience God first hand every day by just existing.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Mr. H.

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


Humankind would have done well to leave well enough alone, accept the notion of "God" as a one-off, and focus on the science and nature of all things both earth-bound and celestial. 

Faith and Religion have decimated untold billions of lives on this planet and they continue to do so. 

We are a race of conceited, egotistical, and self-centered beings with little to no connection to "God" other than the periodic table of elements.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with all of infinity to play with the universe is all of a definitive 13.7 billion years old? Nothing happened prior to that and once it all collapses in on itself, if it does, nothing will be happening afterward either..... Seems kinda' pointless to continue doesn't it?
> 
> And who's saying that God waited around for 13.7 billion years for some puny insignificant bipedal species to suddenly appear?
> 
> As for saying 'we don't know yet'.... You do realize what the definition of a miracle is don't you?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We only know of the age of the current universe, what came before, if anything is not known...yet. And there are various theories on what the final end of this universe will be. It may continue to expand into infinity and all the stars burn out, leaving the universe cold and dark. Or there may be a mechanism that causes it to collapse again, perhaps into another big bang, something of a causality loop.
> 
> Your position is there is a god? Which one? How do you know?
> 
> There is no evidence of any god. You people that believe in one, produce the evidence and I'll be on board. Of course that doesn't mean only the 'christian' god. There are 4,000 other entities that people claim is THE god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of the various theories about the various possible futures of the universe. I'm also noting that you're avoiding answering any of my questions. However I will answer your question(s)...
> 
> Because you experience God first hand every day by just existing.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Which god, Zeus?


----------



## Votto

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



What kick started the universe?

Darwin dunnit.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mr. H. said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humankind would have done well to leave well enough alone, accept the notion of "God" as a one-off, and focus on the science and nature of all things both earth-bound and celestial.
> 
> Faith and Religion have decimated untold billions of lives on this planet and they continue to do so.
> 
> We are a race of conceited, egotistical, and self-centered beings with little to no connection to "God" other than the periodic table of elements.
Click to expand...







What makes you think mankind would have been any better without religion?

Mankind as a whole is...

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with all of infinity to play with the universe is all of a definitive 13.7 billion years old? Nothing happened prior to that and once it all collapses in on itself, if it does, nothing will be happening afterward either..... Seems kinda' pointless to continue doesn't it?
> 
> And who's saying that God waited around for 13.7 billion years for some puny insignificant bipedal species to suddenly appear?
> 
> As for saying 'we don't know yet'.... You do realize what the definition of a miracle is don't you?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We only know of the age of the current universe, what came before, if anything is not known...yet. And there are various theories on what the final end of this universe will be. It may continue to expand into infinity and all the stars burn out, leaving the universe cold and dark. Or there may be a mechanism that causes it to collapse again, perhaps into another big bang, something of a causality loop.
> 
> Your position is there is a god? Which one? How do you know?
> 
> There is no evidence of any god. You people that believe in one, produce the evidence and I'll be on board. Of course that doesn't mean only the 'christian' god. There are 4,000 other entities that people claim is THE god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware of the various theories about the various possible futures of the universe. I'm also noting that you're avoiding answering any of my questions. However I will answer your question(s)...
> 
> Because you experience God first hand every day by just existing.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which god, Zeus?
Click to expand...







I've always been kinda' partial to Crom..... Does it matter?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Votto said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kick started the universe?
> 
> Darwin dunnit.
Click to expand...







And here I was hopin' it was a set of jumper cables...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Votto

Can I change my answer?

I think the universe was kick started on the backs of crystals.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Votto said:


> Can I change my answer?
> 
> I think the universe was kick started on the backs of crystals.








Doubt it. Crystals wouldn't have been able to form until more complex elements were created after the initial hydrogen present at the beginning of the Big Bang fused together. Though I suppose there might have been hydrogen crystals after the initial explosion that allowed matter to form. Kinda' hard to be any kind of crystal prior to that considering it'd only be degenerate matter at best inside a universal sized black hole..... Wait!!!!! Degenerate matter crystals? I wonder.

******CHUCKLE******


----------



## Sbiker

Believe to science, not to holy books!

Universe was created by Gamma Rays and Heavy Metal!!!!


----------



## IsaacNewton

So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.

Needs to be moved to flamer forum.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Sbiker said:


> Believe to science, not to holy books!
> 
> Universe was created by Gamma Rays and Heavy Metal!!!!









Oh yeah!!!!! Now that's an answer I just might believe.

******ROFLMAO*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.
> 
> Needs to be moved to flamer forum.








You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....

You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## The Professor

amrchaos said:


> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?



When you say there is a difference between science and religion, you just might be right in most cases, but not all. It all depends on how you define the terms. Personally, I don't see I conflict and I will do my best to explain why.

I think it is insanity to assume that God created the universe and then left it to chance to determine how His creation would function. When “things” were created, the creation was complete. Each thing had its specific and unchanging characteristics, purpose and destiny. The metallic chemical element we call lead always behaves as it was designed. Among other qualities, pure solid lead will always sink in pure liquid water. I prefer to refer to the inherent qualities of things as their nature. This nature is constant and predictable for the world could not function otherwise. In essence, nature is the way God does things and science is the study of nature; therefore, science is nothing more than the study of the way God does things.

Man has identified and even sent rockets past planets that were unknown a mere two hundred years ago. Using stem cells he has regrown a severed human finger complete with a perfectly formed nail; using recombinant DNA he has create life forms which had never before existed. But every scientific principle exploited by humankind has always existed just waiting to be discovered.
There is no conflict between science and religion; they are merely different words used to describe the same thing: how God does things

For the record, my idea of God is not an anthropomorphic being. I am amused by those who think that God is a bearded white man sitting on a throne somewhere in outer space. Although I will not go into great detail at this time (maybe later), my basic conception of God is an eternal, creative and sustaining force, a power which acts with absolute certainty and infallibility.

Do I believe in a type of existence beyond physical death? Yes, but it is based upon scientific principles which are, of course, consistent with my idea of God.


----------



## anwin

Hi Professor,

I agree entirely with your post no 44.

Thanks for that.

Best Wishes.

anwin


----------



## Damaged Eagle

The Professor said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say there is a difference between science and religion, you just might be right in most cases, but not all. It all depends on how you define the terms. Personally, I don't see I conflict and I will do my best to explain why.
> 
> I think it is insanity to assume that God created the universe and then left it to chance to determine how His creation would function. When “things” were created, the creation was complete. Each thing had its specific and unchanging characteristics, purpose and destiny. The metallic chemical element we call lead always behaves as it was designed. Among other qualities, pure solid lead will always sink in pure liquid water. I prefer to refer to the inherent qualities of things as their nature. This nature is constant and predictable for the world could not function otherwise. In essence, nature is the way God does things and science is the study of nature; therefore, science is nothing more than the study of the way God does things.
> 
> Man has identified and even sent rockets past planets that were unknown a mere two hundred years ago. Using stem cells he has regrown a severed human finger complete with a perfectly formed nail; using recombinant DNA he has create life forms which had never before existed. But every scientific principle exploited by humankind has always existed just waiting to be discovered.
> There is no conflict between science and religion; they are merely different words used to describe the same thing: how God does things
> 
> For the record, my idea of God is not an anthropomorphic being. I am amused by those who think that God is a bearded white man sitting on a throne somewhere in outer space. Although I will not go into great detail at this time (maybe later), my basic conception of God is an eternal, creative and sustaining force, a power which acts with absolute certainty and infallibility.
> 
> Do I believe in a type of existence beyond physical death? Yes, but it is based upon scientific principles which are, of course, consistent with my idea of God.
Click to expand...







Sounds like a fellow pantheist.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****


----------



## Muhammed

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?


Why do you presume that the universe was "kick started" in the first place?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Muhammed said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume that the universe was "kick started" in the first place?
Click to expand...







Are you suggesting that the Big Bang theory is incorrect?

OR

Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion don't apply to this universe?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Muhammed

Damaged Eagle said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume that the universe was "kick started" in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that the Big Bang theory is incorrect?
> 
> OR
> 
> Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion don't apply to this universe?
Click to expand...

Yes and No.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Muhammed said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume that the universe was "kick started" in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that the Big Bang theory is incorrect?
> 
> OR
> 
> Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion don't apply to this universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and No.
Click to expand...







Are those answers to the respective questions in sequence or a none answer? Please expound.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.
> 
> Needs to be moved to flamer forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....
> 
> You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


You are looking for the gibberish forum.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.
> 
> Needs to be moved to flamer forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....
> 
> You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are looking for the gibberish forum.
Click to expand...







As I suggested perhaps you're asking the wrong questions or, as appears more likely, you're incapable of processing the answer provided.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.
> 
> Needs to be moved to flamer forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....
> 
> You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are looking for the gibberish forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I suggested perhaps you're asking the wrong questions or, as appears more likely, you're incapable of processing the answer provided.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


LOL Whatever makes you feel good.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.
> 
> Needs to be moved to flamer forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....
> 
> You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are looking for the gibberish forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I suggested perhaps you're asking the wrong questions or, as appears more likely, you're incapable of processing the answer provided.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Whatever makes you feel good.
Click to expand...







(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
*Gospel of St Thomas
*
I don't have time to look up Hindu, Buddhist, and other passages.

However I feel fine and to quote Dark Fury...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## there4eyeM

Anywhere is somewhere, but anything that is everywhere is nowhere.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

there4eyeM said:


> Anywhere is somewhere, but anything that is everywhere is nowhere.








Really????? That's somewhat profound. So since the universe is everywhere that means it's really nowhere... Which makes you where?

*****CHUCKLE*****




I'll see if you've replied tomorrow because right now I need to go somewhere.


----------



## there4eyeM

If God were to exist, that's where I'd be.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



Just because we might not know all the answers to the beginning of the universe does not mean that a god was responsible

In fact I believe there are many things in this universe that we will never understand simply because our minds are incapable of it much like my dog is incapable of doing algebra


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.

Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.

The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone.  Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.

And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it. 

The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.


----------



## IsaacNewton

UllysesS.Archer said:


> It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.
> 
> Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.
> 
> The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone.  Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.
> 
> And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.
> 
> The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.



"Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."

Wow, Rick Perry is that you?

Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct?  Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.

I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?

Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.


----------



## amrchaos

Damaged Eagle said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.
> 
> My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.
> 
> Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true.  Religions don't do this.

1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.

And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.

Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.



On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.  


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?  

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water.  One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is.  If it is false, then it is false.  *Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.*


----------



## LittleNipper

IsaacNewton said:


> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.


An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

LittleNipper said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been Designed a few thousand years ago..
Click to expand...

This post proves that 'god' doesn't exist as perceived by theists.


----------



## LittleNipper

IsaacNewton said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.
> 
> Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.
> 
> The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone.  Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.
> 
> And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.
> 
> The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."
> 
> Wow, Rick Perry is that you?
> 
> Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct?  Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.
> 
> I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?
> 
> Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but such scientists have left out GOD. Without GOD all computations become warped and distorted. Say for a moment you were God. Now say you said, "Let the stars appear." And suddenly there are stars. How old are those stars? Not how old do they appear --- but how old are they REALLY? Now, a scientist will say --- but it will take many years for the light of those stars to reach the earth. But oddly, the Bible clearly indicates that GOD created the light BEFORE HE created any sources for that light? How did ancient man formulate that light takes time to travel.  I believe they didn't --- GOD revealed it to them.


----------



## LittleNipper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been Designed a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post proves that 'god' doesn't exist as perceived by theists.
Click to expand...

 Not at all!
We are talking of Christians and not theists. Theists merely believe that GOD is likely. They do not always believe in HIS revelation or the Bible or Christ.


----------



## LittleNipper

amrchaos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.
> 
> My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.
> 
> Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true.  Religions don't do this.
> 
> 1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
> 2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
> 3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.
> 
> And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.
> 
> Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand,
> Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.
> 
> 
> For instance, the firmament is what exactly?
> 
> The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?
> 
> Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water.  One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?
> 
> So it does not matter how old a story is.  If it is false, then it is false.  *Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.*
Click to expand...

You ask a lot of interesting questions; however, is not water found in outer space? Think of comets and the polar caps of Mars. What is space exactly?  What is a species? Science is not absolute ---- does that make science of no value?


----------



## IsaacNewton

LittleNipper said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
Click to expand...


Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

there4eyeM said:


> If God were to exist, that's where I'd be.








*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Skull Pilot said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we might not know all the answers to the beginning of the universe does not mean that a god was responsible
> 
> In fact I believe there are many things in this universe that we will never understand simply because our minds are incapable of it much like my dog is incapable of doing algebra
Click to expand...







Wouldn't that depend on what one considers God?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

amrchaos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.
> 
> My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.
> 
> Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true.  Religions don't do this.
> 
> 1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
> 2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
> 3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.
> 
> And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.
> 
> Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand,
> Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.
> 
> 
> For instance, the firmament is what exactly?
> 
> The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?
> 
> Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water.  One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?
> 
> So it does not matter how old a story is.  If it is false, then it is false.  *Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.*
Click to expand...







You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?  You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red). No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made. No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
Click to expand...







Prove that you and the rest of the universe are anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on to play more than a nanosecond ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

Nah, I'm sure that 'proof' is in your head somewhere. Go with that.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

IsaacNewton said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.
> 
> Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.
> 
> The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone.  Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.
> 
> And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.
> 
> The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."
> 
> Wow, Rick Perry is that you?
> 
> Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct?  Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.
> 
> I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?
> 
> Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.
Click to expand...

I never put a number of years on how long Adam walked in the garden. I don't believe time as we know it, started being counted until the apple was taken from the tree, and sin entered the world. 

Evolution may be accepted as fact by scientists, but not all of them accept it. There are too many holes in the theory, and many holes the scientific community does not want to acknowledge. Where are the fossils that show an evolving creature? Where is the evidence for macroevolution? The Cambrian explosion has shown great holes in the 'theory' of evolution. Holes big enough to bring the whole theory crashing down. Yet many scientists just make excuses. Excuses are not facts.

Like it or not, and we know you don't, and you could never admit, that evolution is just a theory. A theory that is being disproven, more and more, as every day passes.

The Scientific Case Against Evolution The Institute for Creation Research

But, hey, if you want to believe that your ancestors were invertebrate water breathers, more power to you, even though there is no real evidence to support your claims.


----------



## IsaacNewton

UllysesS.Archer said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.
> 
> Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.
> 
> The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone.  Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.
> 
> And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.
> 
> The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."
> 
> Wow, Rick Perry is that you?
> 
> Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct?  Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.
> 
> I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?
> 
> Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never put a number of years on how long Adam walked in the garden. I don't believe time as we know it, started being counted until the apple was taken from the tree, and sin entered the world.
> 
> Evolution may be accepted as fact by scientists, but not all of them accept it. There are too many holes in the theory, and many holes the scientific community does not want to acknowledge. Where are the fossils that show an evolving creature? Where is the evidence for macroevolution? The Cambrian explosion has shown great holes in the 'theory' of evolution. Holes big enough to bring the whole theory crashing down. Yet many scientists just make excuses. Excuses are not facts.
> 
> Like it or not, and we know you don't, and you could never admit, that evolution is just a theory. A theory that is being disproven, more and more, as every day passes.
> 
> The Scientific Case Against Evolution The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> But, hey, if you want to believe that your ancestors were invertebrate water breathers, more power to you, even though there is no real evidence to support your claims.
Click to expand...


Ridiculous. The evidence for evolution is mountainous. Honestly it is hard to believe anyone today would attempt to make a claim that evolution is "being disproven". The exact opposite is the case. The more time passes the more evidence is accrued. Many more dinosaur fossils have been found with feathers, confirming birds evolved from dinosaurs. And there are many examples of organisms evolving over time.

You believe in 'gods' and magic, do whatever makes you happy.

I follow evidence and fact.

And please do not post up links from 'The Institute for Creation Research'. Its like the 'Creation Museum'. Not worth the time. The whole 'Intelligent Design' scam is just that, a scam to try to put religion on the same scientific pedestal as science. It isn't and never will be.


----------



## amrchaos

LittleNipper said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.
> 
> My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.
> 
> Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true.  Religions don't do this.
> 
> 1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
> 2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
> 3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.
> 
> And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.
> 
> Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand,
> Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.
> 
> 
> For instance, the firmament is what exactly?
> 
> The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?
> 
> Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water.  One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?
> 
> So it does not matter how old a story is.  If it is false, then it is false.  *Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ask a lot of interesting questions; however, is not water found in outer space? Think of comets and the polar caps of Mars. What is space exactly?  What is a species? Science is not absolute ---- does that make science of no value?
Click to expand...


I do not know what you mean by the term 'absolute'.  However science is practical to man, and that is where science value lies--with man.

Now I am curious.  Although I do not understand you meaning of the term 'absolute', but question do follow.

Do you think something must be 'absolute' in order to have value.
Are there any absolutes that does not have value?
What is do you mean by 'absolute' and 'value'?


----------



## amrchaos

Damaged Eagle said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.
> 
> My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.
> 
> Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true.  Religions don't do this.
> 
> 1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
> 2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
> 3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.
> 
> And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.
> 
> Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand,
> Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.
> 
> 
> For instance, the firmament is what exactly?
> 
> The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?
> 
> Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water.  One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?
> 
> So it does not matter how old a story is.  If it is false, then it is false.  *Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?  You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red). No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made. No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


1st--when did I say those things? i don't think I claimed anything by way of science beside the fact that it can disprove Genesis by observation.

We can see the things described in Genesis do not exist or are not what is described. That is proof that Genesis does not come from some all knowing God.



> You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?  You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red).



I think you are setting yourself up for another fail here.  Do you remember how I described science?

Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
Let us attack: *You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?*

1)Humility: The Big Bang is a working theory.  If it is demonstrably false, science will admit its mistake and try to come up with a different theory.

2)Clumsy: The Big Bang theory is a mixture of an accidental observation and theology.  Science basically 'tripped' over it and got some help from a astronomer/theologian(The same one who came up with the basic idea for the Big Bang theory!)

3)woefully inquisitive:The majority of 'observations' made to support anyone of the Bang Theories(there are numerous competing versions by the way) is due to questioning what should happen if the Universe did start from an explosion. Thus scientist go out to find these traces or evidence for there theories to see if it is present or not.  Again humility plays here

* Note--You do not need to see with your eyes to prove an event occurred. *You do not need to believe if you can demonstrate a claim is false.

For instance:  How does the forensic expert prove which bullet comes from which gun if they did not see any guns fired?  This is a key question that pops up in murder cases.  If the forensics specialists does not see it, how does he prove which gun? He does not see it, but he is able to prove which gun!




> No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made.



I am sure the above is another fail.  
*Science is not theology.* 

Science job is to help describe our reality, the physical world, around us.  Theology is to discipline its followers in a set of behavior, to teach morals. All of which is necessary to promote  our self worth, associations with others and to form just judgements--plus a lot more.


Science can not teach morals. Theology is horrible when it comes to describing reality and does not need to.. However both are practical and has value to man.



> No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.



Yes, philosophers and scientist can admit they are wrong.  Science is humble, remember?

You didn't list any leaders of a religion. Can theologians admit their beliefs are wrong? No--that is blasphemy.  Religions are arrogant, remember?


----------



## PratchettFan

amrchaos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.
> 
> My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.
> 
> Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true.  Religions don't do this.
> 
> 1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
> 2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
> 3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.
> 
> And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.
> 
> Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand,
> Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.
> 
> 
> For instance, the firmament is what exactly?
> 
> The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?
> 
> Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water.  One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?
> 
> So it does not matter how old a story is.  If it is false, then it is false.  *Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.*
Click to expand...

 
You can't apply science to religion any more than you can apply religion to science.  They are not he same thing.  They do not use the same standards.  To attempt to treat them as the same results in error no matter which side you approach it from.  If you look at Genesis as a literalist, it really doesn't matter if you do so as a believer or disclaimer, because it is not intended to be taken literally.  And actually, given the limited information available to the authors, the overall story isn't that far off from what we now think happened.


----------



## amrchaos

PratchettFan said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.
> 
> My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.
> 
> Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true.  Religions don't do this.
> 
> 1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
> 2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
> 3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.
> 
> And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.
> 
> Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand,
> Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.
> 
> 
> For instance, the firmament is what exactly?
> 
> The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?
> 
> Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water.  One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?
> 
> So it does not matter how old a story is.  If it is false, then it is false.  *Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't apply science to religion any more than you can apply religion to science.  They are not he same thing.  They do not use the same standards.  To attempt to treat them as the same results in error no matter which side you approach it from.  If you look at Genesis as a literalist, it really doesn't matter if you do so as a believer or disclaimer, because it is not intended to be taken literally.  And actually, given the limited information available to the authors, the overall story isn't that far off from what we now think happened.
Click to expand...


I don't think I suggested that.  I think Eagle wanted me to demonstrate how I would approach these questions.

Even so, I do agree with you: science is not religion.  They serve distinct roles.


----------



## PratchettFan

amrchaos said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......and science holds the answer to all questions....."
> 
> *Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!*
> (OP fail)
> 
> That is difference between science and religion.  Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.
> 
> Yet science has a better description of reality than religion.  Why is that so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.
> 
> My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.
> 
> Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true.  Religions don't do this.
> 
> 1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
> 2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
> 3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.
> 
> And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.
> 
> Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand,
> Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.
> 
> 
> For instance, the firmament is what exactly?
> 
> The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?
> 
> Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water.  One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?
> 
> So it does not matter how old a story is.  If it is false, then it is false.  *Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't apply science to religion any more than you can apply religion to science.  They are not he same thing.  They do not use the same standards.  To attempt to treat them as the same results in error no matter which side you approach it from.  If you look at Genesis as a literalist, it really doesn't matter if you do so as a believer or disclaimer, because it is not intended to be taken literally.  And actually, given the limited information available to the authors, the overall story isn't that far off from what we now think happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I suggested that.  I think Eagle wanted me to demonstrate how I would approach these questions.
> 
> Even so, I do agree with you: science is not religion.  They serve distinct roles.
Click to expand...

 
Ahhh....  I admit to skimming most of the posts. My apologies.


----------



## cnm

Damaged Eagle said:


> Prove that you and the rest of the universe are anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on to play more than a nanosecond ago.


Prove that it isn't.

But you're not talking science. Science does evidence, not proof, and there's enough evidence for scientists to have a consensus that the universe is some billions of years old. There's no evidence I'm aware of that the universe began just before you typed your post.


----------



## cnm

UllysesS.Archer said:


> But, hey, if you want to believe that your ancestors were invertebrate water breathers, more power to you, even though there is no real evidence to support your claims.


There is overwhelming evidence for that claim according to all scientists but a few batshit crazies. I'll go with the side that is in the vast majority, not with the few batshit crazies.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

amrchaos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?  You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red). No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made. No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st--when did I say those things? i don't think I claimed anything by way of science beside the fact that it can disprove Genesis by observation.
> 
> We can see the things described in Genesis do not exist or are not what is described. That is proof that Genesis does not come from some all knowing God.
Click to expand...


You're the one so certain of yourself... Now you're saying that you haven't seen these things take place and you have the arrogant presumption to criticize other cultures about their beliefs?



amrchaos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?  You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are setting yourself up for another fail here.  Do you remember how I described science?
Click to expand...


I doubt it.



amrchaos said:


> Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.



It may be but you apparently aren't. *(NOTE: You need to click on the next section to see the answers I've provided to the rest of what you have to say...)*



amrchaos said:


> Let us attack: *You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?*
> 
> 
> 
> I simply asked a question which you've now failed to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Humility: The Big Bang is a working theory.  If it is demonstrably false, science will admit its mistake and try to come up with a different theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's convenient... So next time instead of basing your theory on the dominant monotheist creation myth will you use the Hindu recurring cycle theology or something else next time?
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)Clumsy: The Big Bang theory is a mixture of an accidental observation and theology.  Science basically 'tripped' over it and got some help from a astronomer/theologian(The same one who came up with the basic idea for the Big Bang theory!)[/QUOTE}
> 
> So he was not only a astronomer but a theologian as well... Hm.m..m....
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3)woefully inquisitive:The majority of 'observations' made to support anyone of the Bang Theories(there are numerous competing versions by the way) is due to questioning what should happen if the Universe did start from an explosion. Thus scientist go out to find these traces or evidence for there theories to see if it is present or not.  Again humility plays here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the humility of accepting that a religion came up with a creation theory first?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note--You do not need to see with your eyes to prove an event occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not need to believe if you can demonstrate a claim is false.
> 
> For instance:  How does the forensic expert prove which bullet comes from which gun if they did not see any guns fired?  This is a key question that pops up in murder cases.  If the forensics specialists does not see it, how does he prove which gun? He does not see it, but he is able to prove which gun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you demand that exact thing from religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure the above is another fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt this too.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Science is not theology.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One man's science is another man's theology.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science job is to help describe our reality, the physical world, around us.  Theology is to discipline its followers in a set of behavior, to teach morals. All of which is necessary to promote  our self worth, associations with others and to form just judgements--plus a lot more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now we're pigeon holing what religion can and can not do? Many religions have been used to describe the world around us. Who are you to tell them what they can and can not do?
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science can not teach morals. Theology is horrible when it comes to describing reality and does not need to.. However both are practical and has value to man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may agree with you on this... to a point.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, philosophers and scientist can admit they are wrong.  Science is humble, remember?
> 
> You didn't list any leaders of a religion. Can theologians admit their beliefs are wrong? No--that is blasphemy.  Religions are arrogant, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe Kepler and Aristotle could be considered theologians in their own right... And Einstein did make a few comments about God...... You were saying something about arrogant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Damaged Eagle

cnm said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that you and the rest of the universe are anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on to play more than a nanosecond ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that it isn't.
> 
> But you're not talking science. Science does evidence, not proof, and there's enough evidence for scientists to have a consensus that the universe is some billions of years old. There's no evidence I'm aware of that the universe began just before you typed your post.
Click to expand...


I'll remember that next time I'm taking a theoretical physics class.






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

amrchaos said:


> On the other hand,
> Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.
> 
> 
> For instance, the firmament is what exactly?
> 
> The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?
> 
> Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water.  One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?
> 
> So it does not matter how old a story is.  If it is false, then it is false.  *Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.*








Perhaps the firmament is the unexplainable religious fulcrum that was used to by the unexplainable scientific lever that started the universe out in both the religious and scientific creation theologies.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## LittleNipper

IsaacNewton said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
Click to expand...

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed  (... Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.


----------



## IsaacNewton

LittleNipper said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
Click to expand...


So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
Click to expand...




IsaacNewton said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
Click to expand...







What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## amrchaos

Damaged Eagle said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?  You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red). No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made. No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st--when did I say those things? i don't think I claimed anything by way of science beside the fact that it can disprove Genesis by observation.
> 
> We can see the things described in Genesis do not exist or are not what is described. That is proof that Genesis does not come from some all knowing God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one so certain of yourself... Now you're saying that you haven't seen these things take place and you have the arrogant presumption to criticize other cultures about their beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?  You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are setting yourself up for another fail here.  Do you remember how I described science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may be but you apparently aren't. *(NOTE: You need to click on the next section to see the answers I've provided to the rest of what you have to say...)*
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us attack: *You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?*
> 
> 
> 
> I simply asked a question which you've now failed to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Humility: The Big Bang is a working theory.  If it is demonstrably false, science will admit its mistake and try to come up with a different theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's convenient... So next time instead of basing your theory on the dominant monotheist creation myth will you use the Hindu recurring cycle theology or something else next time?
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)Clumsy: The Big Bang theory is a mixture of an accidental observation and theology.  Science basically 'tripped' over it and got some help from a astronomer/theologian(The same one who came up with the basic idea for the Big Bang theory!)[/QUOTE}
> 
> So he was not only a astronomer but a theologian as well... Hm.m..m....
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3)woefully inquisitive:The majority of 'observations' made to support anyone of the Bang Theories(there are numerous competing versions by the way) is due to questioning what should happen if the Universe did start from an explosion. Thus scientist go out to find these traces or evidence for there theories to see if it is present or not.  Again humility plays here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the humility of accepting that a religion came up with a creation theory first?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note--You do not need to see with your eyes to prove an event occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not need to believe if you can demonstrate a claim is false.
> 
> For instance:  How does the forensic expert prove which bullet comes from which gun if they did not see any guns fired?  This is a key question that pops up in murder cases.  If the forensics specialists does not see it, how does he prove which gun? He does not see it, but he is able to prove which gun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you demand that exact thing from religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure the above is another fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt this too.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Science is not theology.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One man's science is another man's theology.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science job is to help describe our reality, the physical world, around us.  Theology is to discipline its followers in a set of behavior, to teach morals. All of which is necessary to promote  our self worth, associations with others and to form just judgements--plus a lot more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now we're pigeon holing what religion can and can not do? Many religions have been used to describe the world around us. Who are you to tell them what they can and can not do?
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science can not teach morals. Theology is horrible when it comes to describing reality and does not need to.. However both are practical and has value to man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may agree with you on this... to a point.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, philosophers and scientist can admit they are wrong.  Science is humble, remember?
> 
> You didn't list any leaders of a religion. Can theologians admit their beliefs are wrong? No--that is blasphemy.  Religions are arrogant, remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe Kepler and Aristotle could be considered theologians in their own right... And Einstein did make a few comments about God...... You were saying something about arrogant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> You're the one so certain of yourself... Now you're saying that you haven't seen these things take place and you have the arrogant presumption to criticize other cultures about their beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought up the Big Bang or Evolution and claimed they were true or false in science.  You presumed I did and then asked if I saw these things occur. I explained to you how science approached these theories.
> 
> Not my fault you do not understand what science is, as was evident in your follow up.  You called it a religion when it does not have the characteristics or properties to be a religion. Science does not teach discipline in behavior.  Science does not teach how to deal with others or how to value oneself.  Science does not teach how to apply science for the betterment of society. Religion does, not science.
> 
> You did set yourself for a fail(presuming answers I didn't give.  Assuming you can't prove things you can't see) and totally failed in the follow up (assuming I practice science as a religion.  When the truth is you use religion to explain your science. ) That can be seen as projection on your part.  You really failed twice.
> 
> Also, anyone can give a critique of their or another culture.  However, I am not too sure which culture you are referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the firmament is the unexplainable religious fulcrum that was used to by the unexplainable scientific lever that started the universe out in both the religious and scientific creation theologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start with perhaps, so I think this is an assumption on your part.
> But what you say next makes little sense and is not what is described in Genesis
> 
> The firmament is a PHYSICAL barrier that separates the waters of the Earth from the waters of the Sky.  The stars are fixed lights in the firmament. There is no need to hand wave or assume, it is described in Genesis and it doe not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Damaged Eagle said:


> What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?



Probably the same thing that gives you the ability to discern that there's such a thing as God.


----------



## Muhammed

UllysesS.Archer said:


> It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.


It could be proven if it had any basis in reality.


----------



## amrchaos

frigidweirdo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
Click to expand...



If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK? 
Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.

Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe.  It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Science neither holds the answers to all questions nor does it claim to*...Science can only address observable phenomena and hypothesize as to what is going on then try to show through observable repeatable experiments that the particular hypothesis is correct...we do not have observable phenomena pre Big Bang so Science does not address that pre physics period ...
I think of God as OSOTU or the Operating system of the Universe...some call it the Tao ...I call it Tetra short  from Tetragramaton or the "Four sounds of God"...this entity is beyond my ken I will tell you that right off the bat ...I mean its making zigagazookatrillion calculation a pentasecond yet it takes time to chill with me and keep me keeping on....My guess is that pre Big bang everything and Nothing was one thing then this one thing went fractal for reasons unknown and created a word of dualities where once all had been one ....its been a long strange trip fr sure.....


----------



## hortysir

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "If God doesn't exist..."
> 
> There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.


om·nis·cient
ämˈniSHənt/
_adjective_
adjective: *omniscient*
knowing everything.


----------



## hortysir

pinqy said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science does not hold the answer to all questions. Science is a method, not a depository.  200 years ago "science" didn't know how the sun worked. That didn't mean it was a god just because science didn't have the answer.
Click to expand...

"Science" is supposed to be repeatable, also.

Darwin knew nothing about DNA, either.
Do you think if he had an electron microscope, and could see a DNA helix, he would have have tried to pass off his rotten bag of goods called 'evolution'?


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.

You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.


----------



## frigidweirdo

amrchaos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
> Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.
> 
> Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe.  It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.
Click to expand...




amrchaos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
> Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.
> 
> Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe.  It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.
Click to expand...


So, you say God is what made the universe, but you don't know what made the universe. So God is everything you don't know?


----------



## amrchaos

frigidweirdo said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
> Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.
> 
> Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe.  It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
> Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.
> 
> Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe.  It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you say God is what made the universe, but you don't know what made the universe. So God is everything you don't know?
Click to expand...


More like
I don't know what started the universe.
I assumed it has a start(the hypothesis)
I decided to call the  thing which started the universe God.

I could have given it another name, like the Big Bang, the Appearing Tide, The first Dawn,etc..

It is nothing but a label for a definition.

By the way, there is a lot of things I don't know. I would find it confusing if I labeed each and everything I don't know 'God'.  Until I come up with a clear definition of what I assume it is and give it a unique label, why not just call it "something I don't know".


----------



## amrchaos

You want to hear something strange.

We could go to the very very beginning of Genesis and define God as that which created light.
.
Then the problem becomes proving every other trait the Book attributess to God is the same thing that created light. We never have to talk about what created the Universe because Genesis never claimed God created the Universe!


----------



## zaangalewa

edthecynic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
Click to expand...


Gravity? Gravityis a reaction - not th Action.


amrchaos said:


> You want to hear something strange.
> 
> We could go to the very very beginning of Genesis and define God as that which created light.
> .
> Then the problem becomes proving every other trait the Book attributess to God is the same thing that created light. We never have to talk about what created the Universe because Genesis never claimed God created the Universe!





Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.


----------



## zaangalewa

Socialist said:


> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.



God was not existing before he created existance itselve out of nothing - because nothing was existing before. He never began, he always was.


----------



## edthecynic

bear513 said:


> All I know, no atheist in Fox holes


And no believers out of foxholes!


----------



## edthecynic

zaangalewa said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gravity? *Gravityis a reaction* - not th Action.
Click to expand...

Gravity is a force, not a reaction to a force.


----------



## edthecynic

zaangalewa said:


> *Something created* space, time, *energy*, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter.


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> We should remember how our minds and our thinking are limited by our languages. This often leads to unsupportable assumptions and logic-loops.
> Since we cannot explain some things, especially something so important as existence, we force nouns and terms to fit our fears. The universe must have had a start, yet there must have been a precedent.
> What makes us insist on that? Since we know that we don't know, how can we ask  the question, "what was before the beginning?", when the very question posits an oxymoron? There can be no "before the beginning". Yet, human thinking cannot tolerate, nor indeed digest, such a thought.
> We need to let go more.
> Or, we can just use 'God' as a metaphor to help us along until we grow into a fuller understanding.



You are using thoughts what came from Saint Augustine. In his time - about 1600-1700 years ago - an argument against Christians was: Christian are idiots because "What did god before he created the world? No one knows!" But Saint Augustine answered something like: "When god created the world, he created first time itselve. So this question is senseless, because we are not able to ask what someone did before time existed."


----------



## edthecynic

Damaged Eagle said:


> And yet in it's *arrogance* science *created* a creation theology to deny that *some higher power* might exist.


“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
― Anne Lamott


----------



## edthecynic

Damaged Eagle said:


> You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?


Scientists are more creative than that in verifying events.

A Science Odyssey People and Discoveries Penzias and Wilson discover cosmic microwave radiation

When they began to use it as a telescope they found there was a background "noise" (like static in a radio). This annoyance was a uniform signal in the microwave range, seeming to come from all directions. Everyone assumed it came from the telescope itself, which was not unusual. It hadn't interfered with the Echo system but Penzias and Wilson had to get rid of it to make the observations they planned. They checked everything to rule out the source of the excess radiation. They pointed the antenna right at New York City -- it wasn't urban interference. It wasn't radiation from our galaxy or extraterrestrial radio sources. It wasn't even the pigeons living in the big, horn-shaped antenna. Penzias and Wilson kicked them out and swept out all their droppings. The source remained the same through four seasons, so it couldn't have come from the solar system or even from a 1962 above-ground nuclear test, because in a year that fallout would have shown a decrease. They had to conclude it was not the machine and it was not random noise causing the radiation.

Penzias and Wilson began looking for theoretical explanations. Around the same time, Robert Dicke (1916�1997) at nearby Princeton University had been pursuing theories about the big bang. He had elaborated on existing theory to suggest that if there had been a big bang, the residue of the explosion should by now take the form of a low-level background radiation throughout the universe. Dicke was looking for evidence of this theory when Penzias and Wilson got in touch with his lab. He shared his theoretical work with them, even as he resignedly said to his fellow-researchers, "We've been scooped."


----------



## amrchaos

zaangalewa said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gravity? Gravityis a reaction - not th Action.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to hear something strange.
> 
> We could go to the very very beginning of Genesis and define God as that which created light.
> .
> Then the problem becomes proving every other trait the Book attributess to God is the same thing that created light. We never have to talk about what created the Universe because Genesis never claimed God created the Universe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.
Click to expand...


Genesis starts with God creating light.  That is the primary description given to God. 

Now where does it say in Genesis that God created space, time(God created the the sun and moon to keep time), energy or even the natural laws? It does not.

So what do we have? You are assigning traits to God that may not exist in God. You are assuming.  Whatever created those things could be something else unrelated to the God of Genesis.

You have to prove that these other things are the same as the God of Genesis before claiming that the God of Genesis created those things.

Until then, it seems like you are arguing Polytheism and assume Monotheism to make things simple for yourself.


----------



## zaangalewa

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "If God doesn't exist..."
> 
> There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.



What's your belief.


----------



## zaangalewa

PratchettFan said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is that we don't know, which only means that we don't know.  If that is something some can't deal with, then "God did it" is as good as any other guess.
Click to expand...


And what exactly do you guess?


----------



## frigidweirdo

amrchaos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
> Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.
> 
> Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe.  It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
> Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.
> 
> Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe.  It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you say God is what made the universe, but you don't know what made the universe. So God is everything you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like
> I don't know what started the universe.
> I assumed it has a start(the hypothesis)
> I decided to call the  thing which started the universe God.
> 
> I could have given it another name, like the Big Bang, the Appearing Tide, The first Dawn,etc..
> 
> It is nothing but a label for a definition.
> 
> By the way, there is a lot of things I don't know. I would find it confusing if I labeed each and everything I don't know 'God'.  Until I come up with a clear definition of what I assume it is and give it a unique label, why not just call it "something I don't know".
Click to expand...


But then again do you call it God because you don't know, or do you call it God out of convenience for an argument?


----------



## zaangalewa

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with all of infinity to play with the universe is all of a definitive 13.7 billion years old? Nothing happened prior to that and once it all collapses in on itself, if it does, nothing will be happening afterward either..... Seems kinda' pointless to continue doesn't it?
> 
> And who's saying that God waited around for 13.7 billion years for some puny insignificant bipedal species to suddenly appear?
> 
> As for saying 'we don't know yet'.... You do realize what the definition of a miracle is don't you?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


13.8 billion years meanwhile ...


----------



## Toro

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



God may have started the universe but God may not be the Christian God as you understand God to be. 

For example, God may be like this


----------



## zaangalewa

The Professor said:


> ... I am amused by those who think that God is a bearded white man sitting on a throne somewhere in outer space. ...





Skull Pilot said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we might not know all the answers to the beginning of the universe does not mean that a god was responsible
> 
> In fact I believe there are many things in this universe that we will never understand simply because our minds are incapable of it much like my dog is incapable of doing algebra
Click to expand...


Damn - my dog is a liar.


amrchaos said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gravity? Gravityis a reaction - not th Action.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to hear something strange.
> 
> We could go to the very very beginning of Genesis and define God as that which created light.
> .
> Then the problem becomes proving every other trait the Book attributess to God is the same thing that created light. We never have to talk about what created the Universe because Genesis never claimed God created the Universe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis starts with God creating light.  That is the primary description given to God.
> 
> Now where does it say in Genesis that God created space, time(God created the the sun and moon to keep time), energy or even the natural laws? It does not.
> 
> So what do we have? You are assigning traits to God that may not exist in God. You are assuming.  Whatever created those things could be something else unrelated to the God of Genesis.
> 
> You have to prove that these other things are the same as the God of Genesis before claiming that the God of Genesis created those things.
> 
> Until then, it seems like you are arguing Polytheism and assume Monotheism to make things simple for yourself.
Click to expand...


Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.



Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.


----------



## zaangalewa

Muhammed said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.
> 
> 
> 
> It could be proven if it had any basis in reality.
Click to expand...


What about if god created all possible realities - not only your reality - and sends unicorns as messengers from reality to reality?


----------



## The Professor

One of the most difficult things to define is creation. There are only two possibilities in all the world: (1) That which exists has always existed, although not necessarily in the same form, and (2) something can be created out of nothing. Both concepts are somehow intellectually unacceptable, but
logic dictates that one must be true. The former hypothesis at least has some scientific support.

The scientific consensus is that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed , although the two are interchangeable (first law of thermodynamics). For simplicity I will say that “things” can neither be created nor destroyed. Since things do exist but could not have been created, the logical conclusion is that everything which now exists has always existed, albeit in another form. Naturally, this reasoning applies to all things: every pound, every atom; everything which can be weighed or measured; anything which can be acted upon or which can act upon itself or anything else. This would include God.

From a purely scientific perspective, God could create nothing since everything has always been and always will be. However, God could transform that which always was and will be. The only question is whether there was anything outside of God for Him to act upon, or whether God simply transformed Himself. As mind boggling as it sounds, creation could be explained by the self-transformation of an eternal God. Actually, the self-transformation of God is the only explanation which harmonizes the scientific concept that things cannot be created from nothing and the Christian concept of God the creator of all.


----------



## zaangalewa

edthecynic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gravity? *Gravityis a reaction* - not th Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is a force, not a reaction to a force.
Click to expand...


Looks like the known 4 forces came from one common force.


----------



## The Professor

zaangalewa said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gravity? *Gravityis a reaction* - not th Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is a force, not a reaction to a force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like the know 4 forces came from one common force.
Click to expand...


Well, if Einstein couldn't find the Grand Unifying Theory (GUT)  I doubt that I will.  Hell, I have a problem finding my glasses and car keys.


----------



## cnm

Damaged Eagle said:


> I'll remember that next time I'm taking a theoretical physics class.


Nah, you've ignored it and forgotten it already.


----------



## cnm

hortysir said:


> "Science" is supposed to be repeatable, also.
> 
> Darwin knew nothing about DNA, either.
> Do you think if he had an electron microscope, and could see a DNA helix, he would have have tried to pass off his rotten bag of goods called 'evolution'?


Well he knew creationism didn't fit the evidence.


----------



## amrchaos

zaangalewa said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I am amused by those who think that God is a bearded white man sitting on a throne somewhere in outer space. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because we might not know all the answers to the beginning of the universe does not mean that a god was responsible
> 
> In fact I believe there are many things in this universe that we will never understand simply because our minds are incapable of it much like my dog is incapable of doing algebra
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn - my dog is a liar.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gravity? Gravityis a reaction - not th Action.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to hear something strange.
> 
> We could go to the very very beginning of Genesis and define God as that which created light.
> .
> Then the problem becomes proving every other trait the Book attributess to God is the same thing that created light. We never have to talk about what created the Universe because Genesis never claimed God created the Universe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis starts with God creating light.  That is the primary description given to God.
> 
> Now where does it say in Genesis that God created space, time(God created the the sun and moon to keep time), energy or even the natural laws? It does not.
> 
> So what do we have? You are assigning traits to God that may not exist in God. You are assuming.  Whatever created those things could be something else unrelated to the God of Genesis.
> 
> You have to prove that these other things are the same as the God of Genesis before claiming that the God of Genesis created those things.
> 
> Until then, it seems like you are arguing Polytheism and assume Monotheism to make things simple for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.
Click to expand...


Yes, I think it is simple to assume some things started, but aren't you interested in the questions of what and how?


----------



## amrchaos

frigidweirdo said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
> Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.
> 
> Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe.  It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
> Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.
> 
> Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe.  It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you say God is what made the universe, but you don't know what made the universe. So God is everything you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like
> I don't know what started the universe.
> I assumed it has a start(the hypothesis)
> I decided to call the  thing which started the universe God.
> 
> I could have given it another name, like the Big Bang, the Appearing Tide, The first Dawn,etc..
> 
> It is nothing but a label for a definition.
> 
> By the way, there is a lot of things I don't know. I would find it confusing if I labeed each and everything I don't know 'God'.  Until I come up with a clear definition of what I assume it is and give it a unique label, why not just call it "something I don't know".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then again do you call it God because you don't know, or do you call it God out of convenience for an argument?
Click to expand...


If I was going to use the label God, then out of convenience. 

Unfortunately,  too many people use that word for different meanings. It would not be useful if people keep misunderstanding what I meant.


----------



## hortysir

cnm said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Science" is supposed to be repeatable, also.
> 
> Darwin knew nothing about DNA, either.
> Do you think if he had an electron microscope, and could see a DNA helix, he would have have tried to pass off his rotten bag of goods called 'evolution'?
> 
> 
> 
> Well he knew creationism didn't fit the evidence.
Click to expand...

Yet, still, had no explanation for the Cambrian explosion


----------



## Damaged Eagle

amrchaos said:


> I'm not the one that brought up the Big Bang or Evolution and claimed they were true or false in science. You presumed I did and then asked if I saw these things occur. I explained to you how science approached these theories.



However you seem quite positive about the answers science comes up with without actually having been there.



amrchaos said:


> Not my fault you do not understand what science is, as was evident in your follow up.  You called it a religion when it does not have the characteristics or properties to be a religion. Science does not teach discipline in behavior.  Science does not teach how to deal with others or how to value oneself.  Science does not teach how to apply science for the betterment of society. Religion does, not science.



I assure you that I understand science quite well... Most likely better than you if this conversation is any indication of your knowledge on the subject.



amrchaos said:


> You did set yourself for a fail(presuming answers I didn't give.  Assuming you can't prove things you can't see) and totally failed in the follow up (assuming I practice science as a religion.



From my perspective you practice it like an Orthodox Jew or Orthodox Catholic. Blindly following whatever is put in front of you and not questioning what's said.



amrchaos said:


> When the truth is you use religion to explain your science. ) That can be seen as projection on your part.  You really failed twice.



Really????? Obviously you fail to see the perspective I'm looking at it from. Even though I stated earlier in the conversation what my practicing beliefs are. I would say that's the biggest fail on your part.



amrchaos said:


> Also, anyone can give a critique of their or another culture.  However, I am not too sure which culture you are referring to.



Right now? YOURS.



amrchaos said:


> You start with perhaps, so I think this is an assumption on your part.
> But what you say next makes little sense and is not what is described in Genesis
> 
> The firmament is a PHYSICAL barrier that separates the waters of the Earth from the waters of the Sky.  The stars are fixed lights in the firmament. There is no need to hand wave or assume, it is described in Genesis and it doe not exist.



You're the one that brought up Genesis and the firmament. I'm only making a suggestion that it and your unexplainably kick started universe might have something in common..... Call it a joke at your expense.






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

frigidweirdo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the same thing that gives you the ability to discern that there's such a thing as God.
Click to expand...







I see God every time I open my eyes.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.








God's already provided proof enough to me that God exists.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's already provided proof enough to me that God exists.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Yes, in the one cubic foot of space that is your own skull. If that's what gets you through the day go with it. The masses generally do as well because it is soothing to a mind that sees a dangerous world and a life that will come to an end.

Some of us require evidence of reality, rather than 'gut feeling'. Beauty is not evidence of any 'god'.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

frigidweirdo said:


> So, you say God is what made the universe, but you don't know what made the universe. So God is everything you don't know?








You haven't been paying very close attention to what I've been posting have you?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

zaangalewa said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
Click to expand...


It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

amrchaos said:


> More like
> I don't know what started the universe.
> I assumed it has a start(the hypothesis)
> I decided to call the  thing which started the universe God.
> 
> I could have given it another name, like the Big Bang, the Appearing Tide, The first Dawn,etc..
> 
> It is nothing but a label for a definition.
> 
> By the way, there is a lot of things I don't know. I would find it confusing if I labeed each and everything I don't know 'God'.  Until I come up with a clear definition of what I assume it is and give it a unique label, why not just call it "something I don't know".








Fail.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

edthecynic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet in it's *arrogance* science *created* a creation theology to deny that *some higher power* might exist.
> 
> 
> 
> “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
> ― Anne Lamott
Click to expand...







And you're doing a fine job of it.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

edthecynic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists are more creative than that in verifying events.
> 
> A Science Odyssey People and Discoveries Penzias and Wilson discover cosmic microwave radiation
> 
> When they began to use it as a telescope they found there was a background "noise" (like static in a radio). This annoyance was a uniform signal in the microwave range, seeming to come from all directions. Everyone assumed it came from the telescope itself, which was not unusual. It hadn't interfered with the Echo system but Penzias and Wilson had to get rid of it to make the observations they planned. They checked everything to rule out the source of the excess radiation. They pointed the antenna right at New York City -- it wasn't urban interference. It wasn't radiation from our galaxy or extraterrestrial radio sources. It wasn't even the pigeons living in the big, horn-shaped antenna. Penzias and Wilson kicked them out and swept out all their droppings. The source remained the same through four seasons, so it couldn't have come from the solar system or even from a 1962 above-ground nuclear test, because in a year that fallout would have shown a decrease. They had to conclude it was not the machine and it was not random noise causing the radiation.
> 
> Penzias and Wilson began looking for theoretical explanations. Around the same time, Robert Dicke (1916�1997) at nearby Princeton University had been pursuing theories about the big bang. He had elaborated on existing theory to suggest that if there had been a big bang, the residue of the explosion should by now take the form of a low-level background radiation throughout the universe. Dicke was looking for evidence of this theory when Penzias and Wilson got in touch with his lab. He shared his theoretical work with them, even as he resignedly said to his fellow-researchers, "We've been scooped."
Click to expand...







So they saw background radiation that 'might' be left over from the big bang 'in theory' was supposed to have occurred......

Your point?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's already provided proof enough to me that God exists.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in the one cubic foot of space that is your own skull. If that's what gets you through the day go with it. The masses generally do as well because it is soothing to a mind that sees a dangerous world and a life that will come to an end.
> 
> Some of us require evidence of reality, rather than 'gut feeling'. Beauty is not evidence of any 'god'.
Click to expand...







I only displayed of the more... what men and women call... pleasant aspects of God.

Would you like to see some of what men, and women, call the unpleasant aspects of God?

I saw some in the rest of the religion, and theology, sections of this forum.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Vandalshandle

I'm not sure of the details, but I am pretty sure that Trump had something to do with the beginning of the universe.


----------



## hortysir

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
Click to expand...

Is "something from nothing" a repeatable scientific process?


----------



## hortysir

Vandalshandle said:


> I'm not sure of the details, but I am pretty sure that Trump had something to do with the beginning of the universe.


Just his hair was there


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
Click to expand...







So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's already provided proof enough to me that God exists.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, in the one cubic foot of space that is your own skull. If that's what gets you through the day go with it. The masses generally do as well because it is soothing to a mind that sees a dangerous world and a life that will come to an end.
> 
> Some of us require evidence of reality, rather than 'gut feeling'. Beauty is not evidence of any 'god'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only displayed of the more... what men and women call... pleasant aspects of God.
> 
> Would you like to see some of what men, and women, call the unpleasant aspects of God?
> 
> I saw some in the rest of the religion, and theology, sections of this forum.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


Nah we've all seen it, you have your abosolute, go with it.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
Click to expand...







I see... So out of the chaos your God Of Science established order, and the laws of physics, when he created the universe.....

.....How come this sounds very familiar?.....

.....Was there a 'firmament' present when the current laws of physics didn't apply back then?

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****


----------



## amrchaos

Damaged Eagle said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought up the Big Bang or Evolution and claimed they were true or false in science. You presumed I did and then asked if I saw these things occur. I explained to you how science approached these theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However you seem quite positive about the answers science comes up with without actually having been there.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my fault you do not understand what science is, as was evident in your follow up.  You called it a religion when it does not have the characteristics or properties to be a religion. Science does not teach discipline in behavior.  Science does not teach how to deal with others or how to value oneself.  Science does not teach how to apply science for the betterment of society. Religion does, not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you that I understand science quite well... Most likely better than you if this conversation is any indication of your knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did set yourself for a fail(presuming answers I didn't give.  Assuming you can't prove things you can't see) and totally failed in the follow up (assuming I practice science as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective you practice it like an Orthodox Jew or Orthodox Catholic. Blindly following whatever is put in front of you and not questioning what's said.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the truth is you use religion to explain your science. ) That can be seen as projection on your part.  You really failed twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really????? Obviously you fail to see the perspective I'm looking at it from. Even though I stated earlier in the conversation what my practicing beliefs are. I would say that's the biggest fail on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, anyone can give a critique of their or another culture.  However, I am not too sure which culture you are referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now? YOURS.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You start with perhaps, so I think this is an assumption on your part.
> But what you say next makes little sense and is not what is described in Genesis
> 
> The firmament is a PHYSICAL barrier that separates the waters of the Earth from the waters of the Sky.  The stars are fixed lights in the firmament. There is no need to hand wave or assume, it is described in Genesis and it doe not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that brought up Genesis and the firmament. I'm only making a suggestion that it and your unexplainably kick started universe might have something in common..... Call it a joke at your expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...



Hold it

*If you read the Bible as an allegorical account, how do you come up with miracles are real?  *

Do you understand the question?

Because so far, it seemed like you took the Bible as literal. However,when I  pointed out the literal take does not comport with reality, you tried to give an unfounded assertion.

Now you complain to me about treating the Bible literally,which, by the way, you have done for most of this thread as you post to others. 

However, I am still curious


*If you read the Bible as an allegorical account, how do you come up with miracles are real?*

Understand--when I say real, I mean something of a physical nature.


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
Click to expand...


If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

amrchaos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought up the Big Bang or Evolution and claimed they were true or false in science. You presumed I did and then asked if I saw these things occur. I explained to you how science approached these theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However you seem quite positive about the answers science comes up with without actually having been there.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my fault you do not understand what science is, as was evident in your follow up.  You called it a religion when it does not have the characteristics or properties to be a religion. Science does not teach discipline in behavior.  Science does not teach how to deal with others or how to value oneself.  Science does not teach how to apply science for the betterment of society. Religion does, not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assure you that I understand science quite well... Most likely better than you if this conversation is any indication of your knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did set yourself for a fail(presuming answers I didn't give.  Assuming you can't prove things you can't see) and totally failed in the follow up (assuming I practice science as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective you practice it like an Orthodox Jew or Orthodox Catholic. Blindly following whatever is put in front of you and not questioning what's said.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the truth is you use religion to explain your science. ) That can be seen as projection on your part.  You really failed twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really????? Obviously you fail to see the perspective I'm looking at it from. Even though I stated earlier in the conversation what my practicing beliefs are. I would say that's the biggest fail on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, anyone can give a critique of their or another culture.  However, I am not too sure which culture you are referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now? YOURS.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You start with perhaps, so I think this is an assumption on your part.
> But what you say next makes little sense and is not what is described in Genesis
> 
> The firmament is a PHYSICAL barrier that separates the waters of the Earth from the waters of the Sky.  The stars are fixed lights in the firmament. There is no need to hand wave or assume, it is described in Genesis and it doe not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that brought up Genesis and the firmament. I'm only making a suggestion that it and your unexplainably kick started universe might have something in common..... Call it a joke at your expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hold it
> 
> *If you read the Bible as an allegorical account, how do you come up with miracles are real?  *
> 
> Do you understand the question?
> 
> Because so far, it seemed like you took the Bible as literal. However,when I  pointed out the literal take does not comport with reality, you tried to give an unfounded assertion.
> 
> Now you complain to me about treating the Bible literally,which, by the way, you have done for most of this thread as you post to others.
> 
> However, I am still curious
> 
> 
> *If you read the Bible as an allegorical account, how do you come up with miracles are real?*
> 
> Understand--when I say real, I mean something of a physical nature.
Click to expand...







Your biggest fail is that you keep assuming that I consider myself a Christian or Jew or something when I've already told you what I am.

*****CHUCKLE******


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> 
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have it backwards.  An atheist is the one who would say "100% there is no God."  An agnostic isn't sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have it backwards.  An atheist is the one who would say "100% there is no God."  An agnostic isn't sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Let me try that again.  You have it backwards.  Atheists are the ones who say 100% there is no God.  Agnostics aren't sure.


----------



## zaangalewa

edthecynic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Something created* space, time, *energy*, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Nevertheless energy is [here]. How is it able to be [here]? Who or what made it - if nothing and no one in our world is able to create or to destroy energy?


----------



## hortysir

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
Click to expand...

Do they?
How do they know?....better yet.....how do you know that they know?
Any links or something to support this?


----------



## zaangalewa

The Professor said:


> One of the most difficult things to define is creation.


Nothing was. Suddenly everything was. 


> There are only two possibilities in all the world: (1) That which exists has always existed, although not necessarily in the same form, and (2) something can be created out of nothing. Both concepts are somehow intellectually unacceptable, but
> logic dictates that one must be true. The former hypothesis at least has some scientific support.
> 
> The scientific consensus is that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed , although the two are interchangeable (first law of thermodynamics). For simplicity I will say that “things” can neither be created nor destroyed. Since things do exist but could not have been created, the logical conclusion is that everything which now exists has always existed, albeit in another form. Naturally, this reasoning applies to all things: every pound, every atom; everything which can be weighed or measured; anything which can be acted upon or which can act upon itself or anything else. This would include God.
> 
> From a purely scientific perspective, God could create nothing since everything has always been and always will be. However, God could transform that which always was and will be. The only question is whether there was anything outside of God for Him to act upon, or whether God simply transformed Himself. As mind boggling as it sounds, creation could be explained by the self-transformation of an eternal God. Actually, the self-transformation of God is the only explanation which harmonizes the scientific concept that things cannot be created from nothing and the Christian concept of God the creator of all.



500 million years ago it was very difficult to find some chocolate. And still today it is not easy to find chocolate. But maybe we should not forget to protect the living conditions for all and every life on our planet, because it is the only planet with chocolate.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Damaged Eagle said:


> I see God every time I open my eyes.



Good for you. I know people who see weird stuff when they open their eyes, they're druggies.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

hortysir said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they?
> How do they know?....better yet.....how do you know that they know?
> Any links or something to support this?
Click to expand...






He's referring to the theory that a lot of physicists hold at this time...

Understanding BIG BANG from the law of physics of today is not achievable. A conversation on TED.com

What Came Before the Big Bang DiscoverMagazine.com

...I think they are wrong and that we just don't have enough information to say that we understand how the universe operates at this time. After all even Einstein couldn't come up with a GUT Grand Universal Theory when he was alive. I suspect we're missing something(s) very basic and that one of these fine days someone will have an apple drop on their head and there'll be shouts of 'Eureka!'

Until then they prefer to assume that at one moment things were different, and in the next we had what we call the universe, because it makes them feel better in creating their theory/theology.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

frigidweirdo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see God every time I open my eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. I know people who see weird stuff when they open their eyes, they're druggies.
Click to expand...







I'm sure that you're very familiar with them.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****


----------



## frigidweirdo

Damaged Eagle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see God every time I open my eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. I know people who see weird stuff when they open their eyes, they're druggies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you're very familiar with them.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


WHy are you sure?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

frigidweirdo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see God every time I open my eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. I know people who see weird stuff when they open their eyes, they're druggies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you're very familiar with them.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHy are you sure?
Click to expand...







Because your prior answer indicates that you are.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## frigidweirdo

Damaged Eagle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see God every time I open my eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. I know people who see weird stuff when they open their eyes, they're druggies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you're very familiar with them.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHy are you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because your prior answer indicates that you are.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


And maybe I'm lying. Maybe I'm just saying something.

I live on Mars.

Are you sure I live on Mars?


----------



## zaangalewa

The Professor said:


> ... Well, if Einstein couldn't find the Grand Unifying Theory (GUT)  I doubt that I will.  Hell, I have a problem finding my glasses and car keys.



So what? Take a look at the cars of von Neumann or Woody Guthry. Some people are more absent than present and some people are more present than absent and others are more absent and present.



amrchaos said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I am amused by those who think that God is a bearded white man sitting on a throne somewhere in outer space. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because we might not know all the answers to the beginning of the universe does not mean that a god was responsible
> 
> In fact I believe there are many things in this universe that we will never understand simply because our minds are incapable of it much like my dog is incapable of doing algebra
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn - my dog is a liar.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gravity? Gravityis a reaction - not th Action.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to hear something strange.
> 
> We could go to the very very beginning of Genesis and define God as that which created light.
> .
> Then the problem becomes proving every other trait the Book attributess to God is the same thing that created light. We never have to talk about what created the Universe because Genesis never claimed God created the Universe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Genesis starts with God creating light.  That is the primary description given to God.
> 
> Now where does it say in Genesis that God created space, time(God created the the sun and moon to keep time), energy or even the natural laws? It does not.
> 
> So what do we have? You are assigning traits to God that may not exist in God. You are assuming.  Whatever created those things could be something else unrelated to the God of Genesis.
> 
> You have to prove that these other things are the same as the God of Genesis before claiming that the God of Genesis created those things.
> 
> Until then, it seems like you are arguing Polytheism and assume Monotheism to make things simple for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I think it is simple to assume some things started, but aren't you interested in the questions of what and how?
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem with nothing. If I will never awake after my death I would find this a very satisfying situation. If this is in the will of god, why not? But that's not what I believe nor something someone can be sure about. Whatever god decides in this context - I hope one day he gives me a good explanantion for all the nonsense and confusion in our brains. And sure it is interesting to know why god created the world or how he made it concrete. But if someone knows something about or not helps no one anything. What we need is respect for his creation. Do you know for example that human beings are hunting sharks, cut off their fins and throw them back into the sea  -alive - without fins? I fear the day I see someone eat shark-fin soup and I lose control.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

frigidweirdo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see God every time I open my eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. I know people who see weird stuff when they open their eyes, they're druggies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you're very familiar with them.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHy are you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because your prior answer indicates that you are.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And maybe I'm lying. Maybe I'm just saying something.
> 
> I live on Mars.
> 
> Are you sure I live on Mars?
Click to expand...







You would lie to me????? Imagine that!

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
Click to expand...


What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.


----------



## frigidweirdo

zaangalewa said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
Click to expand...


How do you know the universe had a beginning?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see... So out of the chaos your God Of Science established order, and the laws of physics, when he created the universe.....
> 
> .....How come this sounds very familiar?.....
> 
> .....Was there a 'firmament' present when the current laws of physics didn't apply back then?
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Yours is a Mobius strip where you need a daddy. Buh bye.


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
Click to expand...


Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?


----------



## IsaacNewton

zaangalewa said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> 
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.
Click to expand...


Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it.

I haven't seen any evidence of 'gods'. But there is voluminous evidence of humans needing to believe in 'gods' to explain that which they don't understand and are afraid of.

LOL And 'indocrination' to many means the same as college education, knowledge, and a life time of study of something.

Show evidence of any god that can be tested or correlated.


----------



## amrchaos

frigidweirdo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
Click to expand...


I guess this thread is under the implied assumption that
1)the Universe had a start
2) that there is only one scientific theory to explain that start*(false)*
3) that theory is the Big Bang 
4) that there is only one Big Bang theory.*(false)*

Whew, a lot of assumptions!  I might have missed some other assumptions.  

Anyway, this thread is dead.  Turns out the op claims to be a *pantheist*.

Remember, we started out with "If there is no GOD" yada yada yada "Then what kicked started the Universe?"

If we are given the Pantheist GOD as not existing, then isn't the answer nothing?


----------



## IsaacNewton

zaangalewa said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?
Click to expand...


I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.


----------



## zaangalewa

frigidweirdo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
Click to expand...


It expands.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see... So out of the chaos your God Of Science established order, and the laws of physics, when he created the universe.....
> 
> .....How come this sounds very familiar?.....
> 
> .....Was there a 'firmament' present when the current laws of physics didn't apply back then?
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours is a Mobius strip where you need a daddy. Buh bye.
Click to expand...







So when logic fails the best you can come up with is a personal insult... It belies the name and avatar you chose.

Perhaps we'll discuss some theology after I've caught up on some of the discussions in that area.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Carla_Danger

IsaacNewton said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.
> 
> And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...
> 
> Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.
Click to expand...


----------



## frigidweirdo

zaangalewa said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It expands.
Click to expand...


So? A balloon can expand, doesn't mean it started at the point where it started to expand.

I could give a million theories why it might expand. For example it could be a tube shape which is wider in places and narrower in others. When it narrows to a point then something happens, lots of energy together and then as it moves away from the narrow point it expands, then after a whole it narrows again. 

Just a continual action that goes on and on and on forever. It never started, it'll never finish, it just is.


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.
Click to expand...


Never heard from him. Are you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first planksecond of the existance of our universe?


----------



## IsaacNewton

frigidweirdo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It expands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? A balloon can expand, doesn't mean it started at the point where it started to expand.
> 
> I could give a million theories why it might expand. For example it could be a tube shape which is wider in places and narrower in others. When it narrows to a point then something happens, lots of energy together and then as it moves away from the narrow point it expands, then after a whole it narrows again.
> 
> Just a continual action that goes on and on and on forever. It never started, it'll never finish, it just is.
Click to expand...


That is a bad analogy. Another closer but still not great analogy using a balloon would be you have a balloon that is already inflated and is still expanding in all directions equally. It is very easy to deduce that if you reverse time it collapses from all directions equally until you come to a point far enough back that is where it started expanding. Again, a balloon is a mediocre analogy but it gives a rudimentary idea of the process.

And that point has been measured to be about 13.72. billion years ago.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it.
> 
> I haven't seen any evidence of 'gods'. But there is voluminous evidence of humans needing to believe in 'gods' to explain that which they don't understand and are afraid of.
> 
> LOL And 'indocrination' to many means the same as college education, knowledge, and a life time of study of something.
> 
> Show evidence of any god that can be tested or correlated.
Click to expand...




amrchaos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this thread is under the implied assumption that
> 1)the Universe had a start
> 2) that there is only one scientific theory to explain that start*(false)*
> 3) that theory is the Big Bang
> 4) that there is only one Big Bang theory.*(false)*
> 
> Whew, a lot of assumptions!  I might have missed some other assumptions.
> 
> Anyway, this thread is dead.  Turns out the op claims to be a *pantheist*.
> 
> Remember, we started out with "If there is no GOD" yada yada yada "Then what kicked started the Universe?"
> 
> If we are given the Pantheist GOD as not existing, then isn't the answer nothing?
Click to expand...







Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.

Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?

Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...

Even in your current post.

*****ROFLMAO*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

zaangalewa said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard from him. A you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first plank-second of the existence of our universe?
Click to expand...


I don't know the exact 'planck-seconds' of the timeline. LOL Better to buy a couple books of the leading physicists on the planet and see what they say rather than get that info from an internet message board. All the physicists that I've seen interviewed said the current laws of physics were not active at the big bang. They of course developed after the big bang but again you'll have to go to the experts to get the exact 'planck-second timeline'.

Lawrence Krauss' latest book is A Universe From Nothing. Well worth the read and though it is written for the public it is goes into quite complex issues.


----------



## IsaacNewton

> Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.
> Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?
> Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...
> Even in your current post.
> *****ROFLMAO*****



Fine, you are the all knowing guru of the universe. A 'god' in your own mind it appears. Run along now Newman.


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it. ...
Click to expand...




frigidweirdo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It expands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? A balloon can expand ...
Click to expand...


No - a balloon can not expand. Someone is able to fill a balloon with gas, or to lower the pressure around a balloon. This process is not comparable with the acclerating expansion of the space of the universe.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It expands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? A balloon can expand, doesn't mean it started at the point where it started to expand.
> 
> I could give a million theories why it might expand. For example it could be a tube shape which is wider in places and narrower in others. When it narrows to a point then something happens, lots of energy together and then as it moves away from the narrow point it expands, then after a whole it narrows again.
> 
> Just a continual action that goes on and on and on forever. It never started, it'll never finish, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bad analogy. Another closer but still not great analogy using a balloon would be you have a balloon that is already inflated and is still expanding in all directions equally. It is very easy to deduce that if you reverse time it collapses from all directions equally until you come to a point far enough back that is where it started expanding. Again, a balloon is a mediocre analogy but it gives a rudimentary idea of the process.
> 
> And that point has been measured to be about 13.72. billion years ago.
Click to expand...







If the current laws of physics did not exist when the big bang occurred then the time when it happened could just as well be described as infinite. After all you yourself stated earlier that the current laws didn't apply at that time. 

On the other hand if one subscribes to the steady state theory of the universe we once again we reach the conclusion of infinite.

I'm easy pick and choose. Which theory do you prefer?

Either way doesn't bother my theological beliefs.

 *****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


Every argument for God comes with a fatal flaw. Yours is obvious. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Some answers we may never know. This doesn't prove a God exists. It proves your belief is based on ignorance.

Get it? Your thought only proves sciences position is correct. We don't know, and we will keep looking.

And if an old established belief doesn't stand up to the scientific method, throw it out. Don't accept it just because it makes you feel comfortable.

I suggest you put down the bible and rent the cosmos.


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard from him. A you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first plank-second of the existence of our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the exact 'planck-seconds' of the timeline.
Click to expand...


1,2,3,4,5 ... and so on.



> LOL Better to buy a couple books of the leading physicists on the planet and see what they say rather than get that info from an internet message board. All the physicists that I've seen interviewed said the current laws of physics were not active at the big bang. They of course developed after the big bang but again you'll have to go to the experts to get the exact 'planck-second timeline'.
> 
> Lawrence Krauss' latest book is A Universe From Nothing. Well worth the read and though it is written for the public it is goes into quite complex issues.



But you did not read this books so you are not able to explain what you say on what reason. Why said you what you said if you don't understand it on your own?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.
> Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?
> Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...
> Even in your current post.
> *****ROFLMAO*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, you are the all knowing guru of the universe. A 'god' in your own mind it appears. Run along now Newman.
Click to expand...







Why should I do that? I started this thread and am still waiting for an answer from the scienti..... Oh wait! You just admitted you don't know much about it even though you use a name and avatar that indicates otherwise........ from some atheist that thinks they understand scientific theory on what started the big bang.

If you want to nit pick Genesis or some other religions theology start your own thread about it. This ones for picking on the scientific creation theory/theology.

So far all I've seen is a lot of gibberish about how their beliefs are so much better, and personal insults on the matter, from those who don't believe it was a miracle.

Looks like a big* FAIL* on all your parts.

I'm still waiting.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## amrchaos

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?
> 
> You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.
> 
> What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?
> 
> They are all the creation of man. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it.
> 
> I haven't seen any evidence of 'gods'. But there is voluminous evidence of humans needing to believe in 'gods' to explain that which they don't understand and are afraid of.
> 
> LOL And 'indocrination' to many means the same as college education, knowledge, and a life time of study of something.
> 
> Show evidence of any god that can be tested or correlated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this thread is under the implied assumption that
> 1)the Universe had a start
> 2) that there is only one scientific theory to explain that start*(false)*
> 3) that theory is the Big Bang
> 4) that there is only one Big Bang theory.*(false)*
> 
> Whew, a lot of assumptions!  I might have missed some other assumptions.
> 
> Anyway, this thread is dead.  Turns out the op claims to be a *pantheist*.
> 
> Remember, we started out with "If there is no GOD" yada yada yada "Then what kicked started the Universe?"
> 
> If we are given the Pantheist GOD as not existing, then isn't the answer nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.
> 
> Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?
> 
> Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...
> 
> Even in your current post.
> 
> *****ROFLMAO*****
Click to expand...


I normally explain fails.  It is to help the person to correct himself in future discussions.  

Let start by showing that you just declare fails without any explanations behind them.

The first part of the post is a list of assumptions taken from themes argued through out the thread.  Anyone can go back over the thread to see these themes.

The second part deal with the question posed by the OP. First, take note the OP later claims he is a Pantheist.

*Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.


We are given that God does not exist by the Pantheist OP,
Then we are asked what kick started the Universe.

Since God=Universe(Pantheist definition) and there is no God, then we have no Universe.  We have nothing, basically. This is all from given and knowing the OP

Now we are asked 'What jump started nothing?' The simplest answer is nothing.

Now I am happy to discuss any faults in the above logic.  But just exclaiming fail without any explanation is not conducive to the discussion nor helps anyone following along.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every argument for God comes with a fatal flaw. Yours is obvious. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Some answers we may never know. This doesn't prove a God exists. It proves your belief is based on ignorance.
> 
> Get it? Your thought only proves sciences position is correct. We don't know, and we will keep looking.
> 
> And if an old established belief doesn't stand up to the scientific method, throw it out. Don't accept it just because it makes you feel comfortable.
> 
> I suggest you put down the bible and rent the cosmos.
Click to expand...







Your arguments fatal flaw about my beliefs is obvious.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It expands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? A balloon can expand, doesn't mean it started at the point where it started to expand.
> 
> I could give a million theories why it might expand. For example it could be a tube shape which is wider in places and narrower in others. When it narrows to a point then something happens, lots of energy together and then as it moves away from the narrow point it expands, then after a whole it narrows again.
> 
> Just a continual action that goes on and on and on forever. It never started, it'll never finish, it just is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a bad analogy. Another closer but still not great analogy using a balloon would be you have a balloon that is already inflated and is still expanding in all directions equally. It is very easy to deduce that if you reverse time it collapses from all directions equally until you come to a point far enough back that is where it started expanding. Again, a balloon is a mediocre analogy but it gives a rudimentary idea of the process.
> 
> And that point has been measured to be about 13.72. billion years ago.
Click to expand...


... about 13.*8*2 billion years ...


----------



## amrchaos

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every argument for God comes with a fatal flaw. Yours is obvious. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Some answers we may never know. This doesn't prove a God exists. It proves your belief is based on ignorance.
> 
> Get it? Your thought only proves sciences position is correct. We don't know, and we will keep looking.
> 
> And if an old established belief doesn't stand up to the scientific method, throw it out. Don't accept it just because it makes you feel comfortable.
> 
> I suggest you put down the bible and rent the cosmos.
Click to expand...


Hey sealybob

The OP claims to be a pantheist.  Thus the answer to the op is trivial.


----------



## sealybobo

amrchaos said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it.
> 
> I haven't seen any evidence of 'gods'. But there is voluminous evidence of humans needing to believe in 'gods' to explain that which they don't understand and are afraid of.
> 
> LOL And 'indocrination' to many means the same as college education, knowledge, and a life time of study of something.
> 
> Show evidence of any god that can be tested or correlated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this thread is under the implied assumption that
> 1)the Universe had a start
> 2) that there is only one scientific theory to explain that start*(false)*
> 3) that theory is the Big Bang
> 4) that there is only one Big Bang theory.*(false)*
> 
> Whew, a lot of assumptions!  I might have missed some other assumptions.
> 
> Anyway, this thread is dead.  Turns out the op claims to be a *pantheist*.
> 
> Remember, we started out with "If there is no GOD" yada yada yada "Then what kicked started the Universe?"
> 
> If we are given the Pantheist GOD as not existing, then isn't the answer nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.
> 
> Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?
> 
> Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...
> 
> Even in your current post.
> 
> *****ROFLMAO*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I normally explain fails.  It is to help the person to correct himself in future discussions.
> 
> Let start by showing that you just declare fails without any explanations behind them.
> 
> The first part of the post is a list of assumptions taken from themes argued through out the thread.  Anyone can go back over the thread to see these themes.
> 
> The second part deal with the question posed by the OP. First, take note the OP later claims he is a Pantheist.
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.
> 
> 
> We are given that God does not exist by the Pantheist OP,
> Then we are asked what kick started the Universe.
> 
> Since God=Universe(Pantheist definition) and there is no God, then we have no Universe.  We have nothing, basically. This is all from given and knowing the OP
> 
> Now we are asked 'What jump started nothing?' The simplest answer is nothing.
> 
> Now I am happy to discuss any faults in the above logic.  But just exclaiming fail without any explanation is not conducive to the discussion nor helps anyone following along.
Click to expand...

You can't say God is universe so if there is no God there is no universe.

There is no need for God. The universe is the universe. It just is. Some things we may never know but its cool to speculate. 

Do we need to worship it or go to hell? Does it have a heaven for me? And how do you know these things?


----------



## JohnA

LittleNipper said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.
> 
> Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.
> 
> The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone.  Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.
> 
> And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.
> 
> The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."
> 
> Wow, Rick Perry is that you?
> 
> Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct?  Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.
> 
> I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?
> 
> Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but such scientists have left out GOD. Without GOD all computations become warped and distorted. Say for a moment you were God. Now say you said, "Let the stars appear." And suddenly there are stars. How old are those stars? Not how old do they appear --- but how old are they REALLY? Now, a scientist will say --- but it will take many years for the light of those stars to reach the earth. But oddly, the Bible clearly indicates that GOD created the light BEFORE HE created any sources for that light? How did ancient man formulate that light takes time to travel.  I believe they didn't --- GOD revealed it to them.
Click to expand...

 you say scientists  leave out god but religion leaves our science so the  words they read in a holy books becomes  real  and factual


----------



## amrchaos

sealybobo said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.
> 
> You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it.
> 
> I haven't seen any evidence of 'gods'. But there is voluminous evidence of humans needing to believe in 'gods' to explain that which they don't understand and are afraid of.
> 
> LOL And 'indocrination' to many means the same as college education, knowledge, and a life time of study of something.
> 
> Show evidence of any god that can be tested or correlated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this thread is under the implied assumption that
> 1)the Universe had a start
> 2) that there is only one scientific theory to explain that start*(false)*
> 3) that theory is the Big Bang
> 4) that there is only one Big Bang theory.*(false)*
> 
> Whew, a lot of assumptions!  I might have missed some other assumptions.
> 
> Anyway, this thread is dead.  Turns out the op claims to be a *pantheist*.
> 
> Remember, we started out with "If there is no GOD" yada yada yada "Then what kicked started the Universe?"
> 
> If we are given the Pantheist GOD as not existing, then isn't the answer nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.
> 
> Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?
> 
> Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...
> 
> Even in your current post.
> 
> *****ROFLMAO*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I normally explain fails.  It is to help the person to correct himself in future discussions.
> 
> Let start by showing that you just declare fails without any explanations behind them.
> 
> The first part of the post is a list of assumptions taken from themes argued through out the thread.  Anyone can go back over the thread to see these themes.
> 
> The second part deal with the question posed by the OP. First, take note the OP later claims he is a Pantheist.
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.
> 
> 
> We are given that God does not exist by the Pantheist OP,
> Then we are asked what kick started the Universe.
> 
> Since God=Universe(Pantheist definition) and there is no God, then we have no Universe.  We have nothing, basically. This is all from given and knowing the OP
> 
> Now we are asked 'What jump started nothing?' The simplest answer is nothing.
> 
> Now I am happy to discuss any faults in the above logic.  But just exclaiming fail without any explanation is not conducive to the discussion nor helps anyone following along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't say God is universe so if there is no God there is no universe.
> 
> There is no need for God. The universe is the universe. It just is. Some things we may never know but its cool to speculate.
> 
> Do we need to worship it or go to hell? Does it have a heaven for me? And how do you know these things?
Click to expand...


I like your inquisitive nature. All I can say is look up the various forms of Pantheism.  

However, you are over thinking it.
A Pantheist asked us to assume there is no God
(we have to assume the op God, since any other choice is considered a fail, by the op)

Then asked what jumped started the Universe.


----------



## JohnA

UllysesS.Archer said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.
> 
> Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.
> 
> The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone.  Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.
> 
> And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.
> 
> The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."
> 
> Wow, Rick Perry is that you?
> 
> Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct?  Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.
> 
> I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?
> 
> Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never put a number of years on how long Adam walked in the garden. I don't believe time as we know it, started being counted until the apple was taken from the tree, and sin entered the world.
> 
> Evolution may be accepted as fact by scientists, but not all of them accept it. There are too many holes in the theory, and many holes the scientific community does not want to acknowledge. Where are the fossils that show an evolving creature? Where is the evidence for macroevolution? The Cambrian explosion has shown great holes in the 'theory' of evolution. Holes big enough to bring the whole theory crashing down. Yet many scientists just make excuses. Excuses are not facts.
> 
> Like it or not, and we know you don't, and you could never admit, that evolution is just a theory. A theory that is being disproven, more and more, as every day passes.
> 
> The Scientific Case Against Evolution The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> But, hey, if you want to believe that your ancestors were invertebrate water breathers, more power to you, even though there is no real evidence to support your claims.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

LittleNipper said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been Designed a few thousand years ago..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post proves that 'god' doesn't exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all!
> We are talking of Christians and not theists. Theists merely believe that GOD is likely. They do not always believe in HIS revelation or the Bible or Christ.
Click to expand...

My parents told me my whole childhood I was a gift from God so subsequently that's what I teach the members of my cult.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

amrchaos said:


> I normally explain fails.  It is to help the person to correct himself in future discussions.



You continually assumed my beliefs are Creationist in nature even after having been told my beliefs pages ago and I've constantly corrected you.



amrchaos said:


> Let start by showing that you just declare fails without any explanations behind them.



I'm not going to explain something to you over and over again. If you don't know the answer or question why I post something perhaps you should ask what I mean instead of assuming or attacking. I believe that's why they call it a discussion.



amrchaos said:


> The first part of the post is a list of assumptions taken from themes argued through out the thread.  Anyone can go back over the thread to see these themes.



Isn't that what you do. Make assumptions? It sure looks like it to me.



amrchaos said:


> The second part deal with the question posed by the OP. First, take note the OP later claims he is a Pantheist.



Quite a while ago if the truth be told. Not my fault none of you felt inclined to look it up.

*


amrchaos said:



			Pantheism
		
Click to expand...

*


amrchaos said:


> is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.



Yes



amrchaos said:


> We are given that God does not exist by the Pantheist OP,
> Then we are asked what kick started the Universe.



Clarify this or I'll give you another fail.



amrchaos said:


> Since God=Universe(Pantheist definition) and there is no God, then we have no Universe.  We have nothing, basically. This is all from given and knowing the OP



With you and a few others falling all over yourselves assuming that I had some Christian or other orthodox theological belief system that you could attempt to jump all over instead of questioning what my beliefs were.

Yes. You've shown how discussions work on this forum. Pretty much like other forums. Not discussions at all but just a bashing session.



amrchaos said:


> Now we are asked 'What jump started nothing?' The simplest answer is nothing.



Well obviously it was a miracle to me. Which fits in nicely with my theological beliefs.

Would you like the definition of a miracle or can you look that up for yourself?

Which in the end makes what you're posting right now a fail.



amrchaos said:


> Now I am happy to discuss any faults in the above logic.  But just exclaiming fail without any explanation is not conducive to the discussion nor helps anyone following along.



You're doing a fine job of coming up with your big FAIL all on your own because you're more interested in bashing someone, instead of asking questions, while they make you look foolish..... We're going to get along just fine!

Now look over here and you'll see something wondrous.






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## sealybobo

amrchaos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it.
> 
> I haven't seen any evidence of 'gods'. But there is voluminous evidence of humans needing to believe in 'gods' to explain that which they don't understand and are afraid of.
> 
> LOL And 'indocrination' to many means the same as college education, knowledge, and a life time of study of something.
> 
> Show evidence of any god that can be tested or correlated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the universe had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess this thread is under the implied assumption that
> 1)the Universe had a start
> 2) that there is only one scientific theory to explain that start*(false)*
> 3) that theory is the Big Bang
> 4) that there is only one Big Bang theory.*(false)*
> 
> Whew, a lot of assumptions!  I might have missed some other assumptions.
> 
> Anyway, this thread is dead.  Turns out the op claims to be a *pantheist*.
> 
> Remember, we started out with "If there is no GOD" yada yada yada "Then what kicked started the Universe?"
> 
> If we are given the Pantheist GOD as not existing, then isn't the answer nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.
> 
> Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?
> 
> Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...
> 
> Even in your current post.
> 
> *****ROFLMAO*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I normally explain fails.  It is to help the person to correct himself in future discussions.
> 
> Let start by showing that you just declare fails without any explanations behind them.
> 
> The first part of the post is a list of assumptions taken from themes argued through out the thread.  Anyone can go back over the thread to see these themes.
> 
> The second part deal with the question posed by the OP. First, take note the OP later claims he is a Pantheist.
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.
> 
> 
> We are given that God does not exist by the Pantheist OP,
> Then we are asked what kick started the Universe.
> 
> Since God=Universe(Pantheist definition) and there is no God, then we have no Universe.  We have nothing, basically. This is all from given and knowing the OP
> 
> Now we are asked 'What jump started nothing?' The simplest answer is nothing.
> 
> Now I am happy to discuss any faults in the above logic.  But just exclaiming fail without any explanation is not conducive to the discussion nor helps anyone following along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't say God is universe so if there is no God there is no universe.
> 
> There is no need for God. The universe is the universe. It just is. Some things we may never know but its cool to speculate.
> 
> Do we need to worship it or go to hell? Does it have a heaven for me? And how do you know these things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your inquisitive nature. All I can say is look up the various forms of Pantheism.
> 
> However, you are over thinking it.
> A Pantheist asked us to assume there is no God
> (we have to assume the op God, since any other choice is considered a fail, by the op)
> 
> Then asked what jumped started the Universe.
Click to expand...

It is all amazing. I can see why even without man made up religions people believe a watch can't be made without a watchmaker. But then what made the watchmaker?

How are all the elements for life in comits? We know everything comes from inside stars. How is human and all other life come from inside of stars? And what started the big bang?

I love looking for the answers rather than settling on one that makes me feel comfortable.

So far no signs or evidence convince me a creator exists.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> It is all amazing. I can see why even without man made up religions people believe a watch can't be made without a watchmaker. But then what made the watchmaker?
> 
> How are all the elements for life in comits? We know everything comes from inside stars. How is human and all other life come from inside of stars? And what started the big bang?
> 
> I love looking for the answers rather than settling on one that makes me feel comfortable.
> 
> So far no signs or evidence convince me a creator exists.








If God is God then the best answer he/she/it could give is.... I AM.

Sound familiar?

You can choose to believe or disbelieve all you want. However from my perspective the 'supposedly' scientifically oriented atheists and theists came up with pretty much the same theory/theology... However I'll point out that the theists came up with the theory first.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## amrchaos

Damaged Eagle said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I normally explain fails.  It is to help the person to correct himself in future discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continually assumed my beliefs are Creationist in nature even after having been told my beliefs pages ago and I've constantly corrected you.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let start by showing that you just declare fails without any explanations behind them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to explain something to you over and over again. If you don't know the answer or question why I post something perhaps you should ask what I mean instead of assuming or attacking. I believe that's why they call it a discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of the post is a list of assumptions taken from themes argued through out the thread.  Anyone can go back over the thread to see these themes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that what you do. Make assumptions? It sure looks like it to me.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second part deal with the question posed by the OP. First, take note the OP later claims he is a Pantheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite a while ago if the truth be told. Not my fault none of you felt inclined to look it up.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pantheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are given that God does not exist by the Pantheist OP,
> Then we are asked what kick started the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarify this or I'll give you another fail.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since God=Universe(Pantheist definition) and there is no God, then we have no Universe.  We have nothing, basically. This is all from given and knowing the OP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With you and a few others falling all over yourselves assuming that I had some Christian or other orthodox theological belief system that you could attempt to jump all over my beliefs instead of questioning what my beliefs were.
> 
> Yes. You've shown how discussions work on this forum. Pretty much like other forums. Not discussions at all but just a bashing session.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are asked 'What jump started nothing?' The simplest answer is nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well obviously it was a miracle to me. Which fits in nicely with my theological beliefs.
> 
> Would you like the definition of a miracle or can you look that up for yourself?
> 
> Which in the end makes what you're posting right now a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I am happy to discuss any faults in the above logic.  But just exclaiming fail without any explanation is not conducive to the discussion nor helps anyone following along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're doing a fine job of coming up with your big FAIL all on your own because you're more interested in bashing someone, instead of asking questions, while they make you look foolish..... We're going to get along just fine!
> 
> Now look over here and you'll see something wondrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Again, you do not explain the fail. Your comments does not have any connection to the quotes being.

A perfect example of this:



amrchaos said:


> Since God=Universe(Pantheist definition) and there is no God, then we have no Universe.  We have nothing, basically. This is all from given and knowing the OP



*With you and a few others falling all over yourselves assuming that I had some Christian or other orthodox theological belief system that you could attempt to jump all over my beliefs instead of questioning what my beliefs were.*
(Why was this necessary?  Why did you put it here? Did you find fault in the relations given? No? Yes? If so, where?)

*Yes. You've shown how discussions work on this forum. Pretty much like other forums. Not discussions at all but just a bashing session.*
(I don't think God=Universe is a bash.  That is the basic concept for Pantheism which you claim to be.  Also, you are the one who proposed if there is no God.  There isn't an insult anywhere in the post!)


You continue in this manner up to your conclusion(?). Then you declare a fail without explanation.  _You don't even challenge the argument._

Stranger, is your descent into the topics of miracles.  Question, why is nothing producing nothing a miracle to you? To everyone else, that is simple logic.

Maybe you should sit down and rethink you op. Obviously it is badly worded, especially the use of God in it. 

Normally, God on this board refer to the Judeo-Christian God.  If you wish to talk about another God,* you have to state which one* or everyone is going to assume the God of the Bible.

In other words, it is not the fault of the posters for not guessing you are a Pantheist.  It is your ignorance on how discussions work that led to that misunderstanding.


Oh well
Good luck in your 'debates'
If anyone has followed our discussions, they will no why I don't respond to you on this  thread.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ... My parents told me my whole childhood I was a gift from God ...



And that's why you hated them and became a racist?


----------



## sakinago

Socialist said:


> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.


Best answer I've heard in my drunk life


----------



## Damaged Eagle

amrchaos said:


> Again, you do not explain the fail. Your comments does not have any connection to the quotes being.



What's the definition of a miracle?

A perfect example of this:



amrchaos said:


> Since God=Universe(Pantheist definition) and there is no God, then we have no Universe.  We have nothing, basically. This is all from given and knowing the OP
> 
> *With you and a few others falling all over yourselves assuming that I had some Christian or other orthodox theological belief system that you could attempt to jump all over my beliefs instead of questioning what my beliefs were.
> *
> (Why was this necessary?  Why did you put it here? Did you find fault in the relations given? No? Yes? If so, where?)




Magicians secret.

*


amrchaos said:



			Yes. You've shown how discussions work on this forum. Pretty much like other forums. Not discussions at all but just a bashing session.
		
Click to expand...

*


amrchaos said:


> (I don't think God=Universe is a bash.  That is the basic concept for Pantheism which you claim to be.  Also, you are the one who proposed if there is no God.  There isn't an insult anywhere in the post!)




Did I or did I propose that God does exist in my OP?



amrchaos said:


> You continue in this manner up to your conclusion(?). Then you declare a fail without explanation.  _You don't even challenge the argument._



And in standard liberal atheist fashion many of you bashed away and even decided to employ personal insults.



amrchaos said:


> Stranger, is your descent into the topics of miracles.



I believe I answered that two or three sentences ago... Yep! Sure did.



amrchaos said:


> Question, why is nothing producing nothing a miracle to you?



Well it's pretty obvious that you're attempting to produce something from nothing. First with your assumption about the OP. Next with Isaac Newton's p) little post about how the universe was created from nothing.



amrchaos said:


> To everyone else, that is simple logic.



Well you and a few others sure produced something from nothing since this thread is approaching 200 posts last time I checked.



amrchaos said:


> Maybe you should sit down and rethink you op. Obviously it is badly worded, especially the use of God in it.



Why would I desire to that? It produced the exact results I thought it would. 



amrchaos said:


> Normally, God on this board refer to the Judeo-Christian God.  If you wish to talk about another God,* you have to state which one* or everyone is going to assume the God of the Bible.



No! You should ask questions instead of looking for fault in others and their beliefs. You assumed and in the end became the first three letters in the second word of this sentence.



amrchaos said:


> In other words, it is not the fault of the posters for not guessing you are a Pantheist.  It is your ignorance on how discussions work that led to that misunderstanding.



So you're saying that anyone that states a belief in God around here is profiled as some Judeo-Christian and should be bashed by the majority..... How did I know you were going to say that? Oh!!!!!! I know! It's magic.

Look... If you're not going to ask questions about what someone else says and instantly go into bash and personal insult mode that's your choice.... If you don't like the end results it was your choice.



amrchaos said:


> Oh well
> Good luck in your 'debates'
> If anyone has followed our discussions, they will no why I don't respond to you on this  thread.



That is you choice also... However I've known a lot of posters similar in attitude to you and I don't think you can.






*****CHUCKLE******


----------



## IsaacNewton

zaangalewa said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard from him. A you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first plank-second of the existence of our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the exact 'planck-seconds' of the timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1,2,3,4,5 ... and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Better to buy a couple books of the leading physicists on the planet and see what they say rather than get that info from an internet message board. All the physicists that I've seen interviewed said the current laws of physics were not active at the big bang. They of course developed after the big bang but again you'll have to go to the experts to get the exact 'planck-second timeline'.
> 
> Lawrence Krauss' latest book is A Universe From Nothing. Well worth the read and though it is written for the public it is goes into quite complex issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you did not read this books so you are not able to explain what you say on what reason. Why said you what you said if you don't understand it on your own?
Click to expand...


Another Mobius?


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all amazing. I can see why even without man made up religions people believe a watch can't be made without a watchmaker. But then what made the watchmaker?
> 
> How are all the elements for life in comits? We know everything comes from inside stars. How is human and all other life come from inside of stars? And what started the big bang?
> 
> I love looking for the answers rather than settling on one that makes me feel comfortable.
> 
> So far no signs or evidence convince me a creator exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God is God then the best answer he/she/it could give is.... I AM.
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> You can choose to believe or disbelieve all you want. However from my perspective the 'supposedly' scientifically oriented atheists and theists came up with pretty much the same theory/theology... However I'll point out that the theists came up with the theory first.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

So you're kidding? Chuckle?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard from him. A you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first plank-second of the existence of our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the exact 'planck-seconds' of the timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1,2,3,4,5 ... and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Better to buy a couple books of the leading physicists on the planet and see what they say rather than get that info from an internet message board. All the physicists that I've seen interviewed said the current laws of physics were not active at the big bang. They of course developed after the big bang but again you'll have to go to the experts to get the exact 'planck-second timeline'.
> 
> Lawrence Krauss' latest book is A Universe From Nothing. Well worth the read and though it is written for the public it is goes into quite complex issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you did not read this books so you are not able to explain what you say on what reason. Why said you what you said if you don't understand it on your own?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Mobius?
Click to expand...







You do them so well.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all amazing. I can see why even without man made up religions people believe a watch can't be made without a watchmaker. But then what made the watchmaker?
> 
> How are all the elements for life in comits? We know everything comes from inside stars. How is human and all other life come from inside of stars? And what started the big bang?
> 
> I love looking for the answers rather than settling on one that makes me feel comfortable.
> 
> So far no signs or evidence convince me a creator exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God is God then the best answer he/she/it could give is.... I AM.
> 
> Sound familiar?
> 
> You can choose to believe or disbelieve all you want. However from my perspective the 'supposedly' scientifically oriented atheists and theists came up with pretty much the same theory/theology... However I'll point out that the theists came up with the theory first.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're kidding? Chuckle?
Click to expand...







Am I?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard from him. A you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first plank-second of the existence of our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the exact 'planck-seconds' of the timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1,2,3,4,5 ... and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Better to buy a couple books of the leading physicists on the planet and see what they say rather than get that info from an internet message board. All the physicists that I've seen interviewed said the current laws of physics were not active at the big bang. They of course developed after the big bang but again you'll have to go to the experts to get the exact 'planck-second timeline'.
> 
> Lawrence Krauss' latest book is A Universe From Nothing. Well worth the read and though it is written for the public it is goes into quite complex issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you did not read this books so you are not able to explain what you say on what reason. Why said you what you said if you don't understand it on your own?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Mobius?
Click to expand...


Did you read the book from Lawrene Krauss "A Universe From nothing"?  By the way: I read also not the book from the philosopher Markus Gabriel: "Warum es die Welt nicht gibt" (=Why the world is not existing) - but I 'fear' I will find lots of 'my' ideas in this book.


----------



## edthecynic

zaangalewa said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Something created* space, time, *energy*, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter.
> 
> 
> 
> *Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Exactly.* Nevertheless energy is [here]. How is it able to be [here]? *Who or what made it* - if nothing and no one in our world is able to create or to destroy energy?
Click to expand...

Can't be created means can't be made.
Energy IS.


----------



## zaangalewa

edthecynic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Something created* space, time, *energy*, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter.
> 
> 
> 
> *Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Exactly.* Nevertheless energy is [here]. How is it able to be [here]? *Who or what made it* - if nothing and no one in our world is able to create or to destroy energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be created means can't be made.
> Energy IS.
Click to expand...


No. Energy was not - then energy was. Time was not - then time was. Space was not - then space was. Natural laws were not - then natural laws were ... this all happened in the longest planksecond of prehistory: the first panksecond.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

zaangalewa said:


> Did you read the book from Lawrene Krauss "A Universe From nothing"?  By the way: I read also not the book from the philosopher Markus Gabriel: "Warum es die Welt nicht gibt" (=Why the world is not existing) - but I 'fear' I will find lots of 'my' ideas in this book.









I've read a little of his work but not that particular book. I'll put it on my reading list.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

*****SMILE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

zaangalewa said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard from him. A you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first plank-second of the existence of our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the exact 'planck-seconds' of the timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1,2,3,4,5 ... and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Better to buy a couple books of the leading physicists on the planet and see what they say rather than get that info from an internet message board. All the physicists that I've seen interviewed said the current laws of physics were not active at the big bang. They of course developed after the big bang but again you'll have to go to the experts to get the exact 'planck-second timeline'.
> 
> Lawrence Krauss' latest book is A Universe From Nothing. Well worth the read and though it is written for the public it is goes into quite complex issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you did not read this books so you are not able to explain what you say on what reason. Why said you what you said if you don't understand it on your own?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Mobius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the book from Lawrene Krauss "A Universe From nothing"?  By the way: I read also not the book from the philosopher Markus Gabriel: "Warum es die Welt nicht gibt" (=Why the world is not existing) - but I 'fear' I will find lots of 'my' ideas in this book.
Click to expand...


I did read Lawrence Krauss's book that is why I recommended it. I have not read Markus Gabriel's book. He is a philosopher I believe. Nothing wrong with that at all I read many philosphers.

I'm not into the 'if I dont' think it it doesn't exist' camp. Physical reality exists, thought is only a part of it. I will look for Gabriel's book though, I like to read almost everything I can get my hands on.


----------



## Steven_R

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....



You proceed from a false assumption. Science doesn't hold the answers; science is a methodology for finding the answers. It's a way of asking the questions that lead to an understanding of just how the universe actually functions without relying on superstition and magic.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Steven_R said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proceed from a false assumption. Science doesn't hold the answers; science is a methodology for finding the answers. It's a way of asking the questions that lead to an understanding of just how the universe actually functions without relying on superstition and magic.
Click to expand...







Which false assumption would that be?

That people, such as yourself, glorify science on your sacrificial alter of truth or that you can't answer the question of what kick started the universe in your scientific 'Big Bang' Creation mythology?

*****CHUCKLE******


----------



## Vandalshandle

Damaged Eagle said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proceed from a false assumption. Science doesn't hold the answers; science is a methodology for finding the answers. It's a way of asking the questions that lead to an understanding of just how the universe actually functions without relying on superstition and magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67190
> 
> Which false assumption would that be?
> 
> That people, such as yourself, glorify science on your sacrificial alter of truth or that you can't answer the question of what kick started the universe in your scientific 'Big Bang' Creation mythology?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******
Click to expand...

I know! It was an old guy with a beard and a magic wand!


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proceed from a false assumption. Science doesn't hold the answers; science is a methodology for finding the answers. It's a way of asking the questions that lead to an understanding of just how the universe actually functions without relying on superstition and magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67190
> 
> Which false assumption would that be?
> 
> That people, such as yourself, glorify science on your sacrificial alter of truth or that you can't answer the question of what kick started the universe in your scientific 'Big Bang' Creation mythology?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******
Click to expand...

God of the gaps. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean God did it.

Science deniers are always saying, "were you there 10,000 years ago? So how do you know? Referring to creation vs evolution.

But we're they there 2000 years ago to see someone walk on water?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Vandalshandle said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proceed from a false assumption. Science doesn't hold the answers; science is a methodology for finding the answers. It's a way of asking the questions that lead to an understanding of just how the universe actually functions without relying on superstition and magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67190
> 
> Which false assumption would that be?
> 
> That people, such as yourself, glorify science on your sacrificial alter of truth or that you can't answer the question of what kick started the universe in your scientific 'Big Bang' Creation mythology?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know! It was an old guy with a beard and a magic wand!
Click to expand...






I see... So a scientific 'miracle' occurred that just caused the universe to start up all on it's little lonesome and to question that scientific 'miracle' of truth is to incur the belittlement of people such as yourself.

Maybe you should appoint a Pope Of Scientific Truth's and arrange an inquisition team, dressed in red of course, to promote those truths.

*****CHUCKLE******


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proceed from a false assumption. Science doesn't hold the answers; science is a methodology for finding the answers. It's a way of asking the questions that lead to an understanding of just how the universe actually functions without relying on superstition and magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67190
> 
> Which false assumption would that be?
> 
> That people, such as yourself, glorify science on your sacrificial alter of truth or that you can't answer the question of what kick started the universe in your scientific 'Big Bang' Creation mythology?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God of the gaps. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean God did it.
> 
> Science deniers are always saying, "were you there 10,000 years ago? So how do you know? Referring to creation vs evolution.
> 
> But we're they there 2000 years ago to see someone walk on water?
Click to expand...




When did I say that I denied science doesn't provide answers?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## sealybobo

How does the soul get to heaven? So it leaves the body and stays in tact even though it's not a solid. It travels I assume up into outerspace and then has to leave our solar system? Where is heaven?

People can't accept scientific theories they say science makes no sense to them but then believe there is a place that is located nowhere? Really?


----------



## IsaacNewton

Best thing for anyone who has a problem with science, stop using it.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> How does the soul get to heaven? So it leaves the body and stays in tact even though it's not a solid. It travels I assume up into outerspace and then has to leave our solar system? Where is heaven?
> 
> People can't accept scientific theories they say science makes no sense to them but then believe there is a place that is located nowhere? Really?







Perhaps we all make our own heaven's and hell's.

How do these questions relate to the  OP?

Are you having a dilemma of contradictory scientific universal truths with your denial of the existence of God?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the soul get to heaven? So it leaves the body and stays in tact even though it's not a solid. It travels I assume up into outerspace and then has to leave our solar system? Where is heaven?
> 
> People can't accept scientific theories they say science makes no sense to them but then believe there is a place that is located nowhere? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we all make our own heaven's and hell's.
> 
> How do these questions relate to the  OP?
> 
> Are you having a dilemma of contradictory scientific universal truths with your denial of the existence of God?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

Im looking at that video of Dylan. That's the sun behind the clouds, not heaven


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Best thing for anyone who has a problem with science, stop using it.[/QUOTE







Perhaps those who 'claim' to understand science, and that science holds all the answers, should not be so quick to discount the beliefs of others.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best thing for anyone who has a problem with science, stop using it.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67204
> 
> Perhaps those who 'claim' to understand science, and that science holds all the answers, should not be so quick to discount the beliefs of others.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Just, stop, using it. Or post up all the long list of people that have said science holds 'all the answers'. That is another right wing meme.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best thing for anyone who has a problem with science, stop using it.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67204
> 
> Perhaps those who 'claim' to understand science, and that science holds all the answers, should not be so quick to discount the beliefs of others.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

If I tell you an unbelievable story I should be prepared when you call me on it. So what I do is tell people if they don't believe it they'll burn for all eternity. Religion is the greatest bullshit story ever told. Boy did it catch on.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best thing for anyone who has a problem with science, stop using it.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67204
> 
> Perhaps those who 'claim' to understand science, and that science holds all the answers, should not be so quick to discount the beliefs of others.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just, stop, using it. Or post up all the long list of people that have said science holds 'all the answers'. That is another right wing meme.
Click to expand...







I have no desire to stop utilizing science to answer the questions about my theological beliefs.

If science doesn't hold all your answers then how do you know going in the right direction?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best thing for anyone who has a problem with science, stop using it.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67204
> 
> Perhaps those who 'claim' to understand science, and that science holds all the answers, should not be so quick to discount the beliefs of others.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I tell you an unbelievable story I should be prepared when you call me on it. So what I do is tell people if they don't believe it they'll burn for all eternity. Religion is the greatest bullshit story ever told. Boy did it catch on.
Click to expand...







Yep! You were the one who told the story about heaven and hell.

How about addressing the OP instead of attempting to derail the discussion about the 'miracle of scientific creationism', with things that were not addressed in the OP.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## jillian

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



creationists are funny. 

you might want to go read about the big bang theory and get back to us.

but i always enjoy it when the ignorant do the chuckle thing.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

jillian said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creationists are funny.
> 
> you might want to go read about the big bang theory and get back to us.
> 
> but i always enjoy it when the ignorant do the chuckle thing.
Click to expand...







I consider creationist on both the religious and scientific sides of the argument a little funny since it takes a miracle to accomplish it either way. It's even funnier watching the scientific creationists deny that miracle occurred while proclaiming it did without understanding it while in their ignorance calling others ignorant.

FYI... I don't think I need to read up on the Big Bang at all but since you consider me ignorant you are free to answer my OP question about the Big Bang since you're so....... knowledgeable.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today. 

Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god. 

You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.
> 
> Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.
> 
> You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.







I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.

Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.

You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.

Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?

Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?
(^^^All Fun and Pun intended in this last question^^^)

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## IsaacNewton

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.
> 
> Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.
> 
> You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67220
> 
> I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.
> 
> Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.
> 
> You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.
> 
> Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?
> 
> Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.

Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.

But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.

So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.
> 
> Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.
> 
> You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67220
> 
> I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.
> 
> Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.
> 
> You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.
> 
> Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?
> 
> Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.
> 
> Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.
> 
> But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.
> 
> So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.
Click to expand...




I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.

I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...



IsaacNewton said:


> ...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...



It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?

****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard from him. A you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first plank-second of the existence of our universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the exact 'planck-seconds' of the timeline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1,2,3,4,5 ... and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Better to buy a couple books of the leading physicists on the planet and see what they say rather than get that info from an internet message board. All the physicists that I've seen interviewed said the current laws of physics were not active at the big bang. They of course developed after the big bang but again you'll have to go to the experts to get the exact 'planck-second timeline'.
> 
> Lawrence Krauss' latest book is A Universe From Nothing. Well worth the read and though it is written for the public it is goes into quite complex issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you did not read this books so you are not able to explain what you say on what reason. Why said you what you said if you don't understand it on your own?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another Mobius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the book from Lawrene Krauss "A Universe From nothing"?  By the way: I read also not the book from the philosopher Markus Gabriel: "Warum es die Welt nicht gibt" (=Why the world is not existing) - but I 'fear' I will find lots of 'my' ideas in this book.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did read Lawrence Krauss's book that is why I recommended it. I have not read Markus Gabriel's book. He is a philosopher I believe. Nothing wrong with that at all I read many philosphers.
> 
> I'm not into the 'if I dont' think it it doesn't exist' camp. Physical reality exists,
Click to expand...


Sure. Your are for example [also] some electrochemical impulses on the surface of a two dimensional membrane which reconstruct a three dimensional world, because otherwise one of your ancestors might had fallen from a tree as an ape - and so he would not be your ancestor and had finished your existance before it started - if - on the other side - he not had been fallen in the hands of god who saved him and your existance some hundredthousand or even milions of years ago. ... Is this english any longer or do I construct now a new language? ...



> thought is only a part of it. I will look for Gabriel's book though, I like to read almost everything I can get my hands on.



Good luck. Radical thoughts - not so radical deeds - are often a very good way to find out something about the reality of the world and the truth of god. The idea that the world is not existing at all is for sure a very radical idea. But a short time ago I found out, that even the nothing is not without god - so never anyone who trusts in god is able to go lost.


----------



## zaangalewa

c





IsaacNewton said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.
> 
> Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.
> 
> You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67220
> 
> I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.
> 
> Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.
> 
> You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.
> 
> Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?
> 
> Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.
> 
> Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.
> 
> But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.
> 
> So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.
Click to expand...


Science will not discover god, because the degrees of freedom of science don't allow a final answer and god is always much more free than science. Somehow  god is like freedom itselve. Science is by the way not a god - nor even a metagod - how you seem to think.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I found god. He has been hiding in Blackstar:


----------



## zaangalewa

IsaacNewton said:


> Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence.



What's wrong. A theory is the highest truth science is able to produce. A theory is as long true until someone finds out it is wrong. The big bang theory is true if the universe expands and our ideas about reversibility are correct. It is not true on unknown reasons. So it's still true - except someone is able to say with plausible reasons why it has to be wrong. Only because a theory is falsifyable doesn't mean it is wrong or worthless.



> The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.



Gravity is gravity. You feel it if you stand on the floor. A "law of gravity" is called "law" because we are able to use mathematics with this structure gravity - or all other physical structures. The fascinating background: Mathematics is not a natural science - mathematics says "only" something about a world of plausible ideas and has nothing to do with any concrete reality.



> Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion.



What? To be religious means to be rebound in god - that's all. Since about 100000 years human beings are religious in a sense that they are able to think about what it means to be rebound in god. In my ears what you say sounds like "legs are good but arms are evil".



> And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.



What's wrong and nonsense too. Indeed "god" and "gods" have nearly nothing to do with each other. Gods could be something like ETs or like supermen for example - but god is completly different.



> You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.



Says the master of the universe, who thinks he is god himselve while all others are idiots?


----------



## edthecynic

zaangalewa said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Something created* space, time, *energy*, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter.
> 
> 
> 
> *Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Exactly.* Nevertheless energy is [here]. How is it able to be [here]? *Who or what made it* - if nothing and no one in our world is able to create or to destroy energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be created means can't be made.
> Energy IS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Energy was not - then energy was.
Click to expand...

No, energy never was not.
Cannot be created nor destroyed means energy has and will always exist in the same total quantity, it can only change form.


----------



## zaangalewa

edthecynic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Something created* space, time, *energy*, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter.
> 
> 
> 
> *Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Exactly.* Nevertheless energy is [here]. How is it able to be [here]? *Who or what made it* - if nothing and no one in our world is able to create or to destroy energy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be created means can't be made.
> Energy IS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Energy was not - then energy was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, energy never was not.
Click to expand...


There was no time, no space, no energy, no information - nothing what we are able to say anything about with a falsifyable plausibilty and/or any physical evidence. Before the first planksecsond of the universe was over was nothing what we can say something about. If something smells like nothing, looks like nothing, feels like nothing, is not thinkable like nothing,  is not here and not there like nothing and there's nothing what I would not know what it could be if it was not nothing then I prefer to name this nothing "nothing" or "nothing I'm able to say anything about" if I like to avoid the paradox that a nothing is not able not to exist because it is nothing. If I should be wrong then tell me something about the something what you see. Only because you are able to use some words explains nothing in physics.



> Cannot be created nor destroyed means energy has and will always exist in the same total quantity, it can only change form.



Exactly. Energy is not able to be created and not able to be destroyed. It's only able to be transformed. This is one of the natural laws of this universe here since it is existing. As far was we know it's in the moment about 13.82 billion years old.

Shenandoah - Arlo Guthrie - VidoEmo - Emotional Video Unity


----------



## Militants

Swedish God doesn't help me. I hear on voices in my brain and not funny with voices.


----------



## Militants

Me belief are living again .... Next life time on earth .... Same place like this time ....


----------



## Militants

I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.



I'm not sure about what you call "swedish gods" and "voices". I'm also not sure what you are speaking about by using the words "punishment" or "gang members". If you hear normal loud voices in your brain and others don't hear the same voices, then there's a possibility that you suffer a psychophrenic boost. Don't be worried - about 50% of all human beings have such a problem a short time in their life. The best is to speak with a psychiatrist in this case. Do this.


----------



## Militants

I listen to Radio just now home sweat home ....


----------



## Militants

Yes, i'm living close to a gang member and he hate nazi.


----------



## dblack

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....



Isn't it possible that neither is the case? That there are no gods, but science doesn't hold all the answers?


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> I listen to Radio just now home sweat home ....





Militants said:


> Yes, i'm living close to a gang member and he hate nazi.



What for heavens sake are you speaking about? Do you play a game where you don't know the rules on your own?


----------



## ChrisL

Militants said:


> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.



Talk to a psychiatrist please.


----------



## ChrisL

Militants said:


> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.



If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.


----------



## Militants

zaangalewa said:


> What for heavens sake are you speaking about?



Nazi hater in my town are stupid.



zaangalewa said:


> Do you play a game where you don't know the rules on your own?



Have my normalthinking rules.

No more music of Nazism even I like last 12 years. Or eleven year. Outside my marxist friend how will to kill me before if I said no to hims Catholic church comformation how he will I follow him to him church by Catholicism even I never are Catholic by self.

Abdul dislike Christians and Nazism.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

dblack said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it possible that neither is the case? That there are no gods, but science doesn't hold all the answers?
Click to expand...





Perhaps...  But if everything we do and seem is but a dream within a dream...

Who's dreaming the dream and wouldn't they be considered God?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
Click to expand...


Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
Click to expand...


That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.  A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.



> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.



Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
Click to expand...

If god doesn't exist then zaan's whole (already meaningless) reality comes crashing down.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
Click to expand...


Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.


----------



## Mudda

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
Click to expand...

Atheism is the belief that a god is not possible. Now you know.


----------



## ChrisL

Mudda said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism is the belief that a god is not possible. Now you know.
Click to expand...


Lol.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in superstitious nonsense.


----------



## Mudda

ChrisL said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism is the belief that a god is not possible. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in superstitious nonsense.
Click to expand...

"*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist". Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"the position that there are no deities". That's a belief, since there is no proof of such a position.


----------



## ChrisL

Mudda said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism is the belief that a god is not possible. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist". Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "the position that there are no deities". That's a belief.
Click to expand...


The rejection of belief.


----------



## Mudda

ChrisL said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism is the belief that a god is not possible. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  Atheism is a lack of a belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist". Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "the position that there are no deities". That's a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rejection of belief.
Click to expand...

There is no proof that there aren't any deities, making it a belief.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am disapointed with my problem with voices. They blame me after I listen to music. And Swedish God is that Goden not justice to me he help my voices instead. Far away are only God how can and he help my voices and that against me. What is Swedish God problem ???? I will have some normal people no voices in my brain. That's normal for every people. Swedish God will punishment to me when i'm close to gang members. When they know they will fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
Click to expand...


How do you know that my belief is a superstitious nonsense while your belief is not existing?


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that my belief is a superstitious nonsense while your belief is not existing?
Click to expand...

Because you can't prove any of your myths.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> ... The rejection of belief.



This sentence is confusing. If someone believes not in god  - what would be wrong if god exists otherwise it would be not wrong - what should this one reject? The belief of others?


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are hearing voices in your head, it is likely that you are suffering from mental illness, particularly schizophrenia.  This is a very dangerous mental disorder and you should get yourself diagnosed and start taking medication so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else.  This is a very common disorder amongst the religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that my belief is a superstitious nonsense while your belief is not existing?
Click to expand...


It's no different that Greek mythology.  Lol.  They believed in their gods too.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The rejection of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is confusing. If someone believes not in god  - what would be wrong if god exists otherwise it would be not wrong - what should this one reject? The belief of others?
Click to expand...


It is the rejection of belief in superstitious entities.  What's hard to understand?  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so.  Doesn't change anything.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> That's not what I meant. I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs. A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc. Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.




Religious beliefs can cause mental disorders.

When any religion fills the head of a child with irrational beliefs that contradict reality and teaches them that any rational objection that might arise in their own mind or question about that belief is a satanic attack of the devil, an evil invisible condemned being,  then every time that person has a rational thought their mind is preconditioned by their faith to fight it with every fiber of their being and cast it out resulting in a confused and disordered death like state of mind where rational thinking is no where to be found.

Thats why so many are so freaked out about the devil because to them the danger is as real and immediate as any thought in their head.

I'm surprised that any of them can keep it together at all.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The rejection of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is confusing. If someone believes not in god  - what would be wrong if god exists otherwise it would be not wrong - what should this one reject? The belief of others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the rejection of belief in superstitious entities. What's hard to understand?  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so.  Doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...


If I see it the right way then you reject my belief. But I have nothing to do with you. So I don't understand this attitude. I don't think you have a big idea about me nor about my belief.


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant. I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs. A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc. Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious beliefs can cause mental disorders.
> 
> When any religion fills the head of a child with irrational beliefs that contradict reality and teaches them that any rational objection that might arise in their own mind or question about that belief is a satanic attack of the devil, an evil invisible condemned being,  then every time that person has a rational thought their mind is preconditioned by their faith to fight it with every fiber of their being and cast it out resulting in a confused and disordered death like state of mind where rational thinking is no where to be found.
> 
> Thats why so many are so freaked out about the devil because to them the danger is as real and immediate as any thought in their head.
> 
> I'm surprised that any of them can keep it together at all.
Click to expand...


Makes sense.  It is all based upon brainwashing that's for sure.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The rejection of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is confusing. If someone believes not in god  - what would be wrong if god exists otherwise it would be not wrong - what should this one reject? The belief of others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the rejection of belief in superstitious entities. What's hard to understand?  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so.  Doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I see it the right way then you reject my belief. But I have nothing to do with you.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that you are right at all.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

I find it interesting in that a lot of the religious folks will say that we cannot "question" their "god (s)".  Knowledge is a BAD thing according to most religions.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schizpophrenic people are not more dangeorus than others and schizophrenia is not a spiritual but a biological problem of the brain metabolism. Schizophrenic people are in worst case in danger to lose the contact to every form of reality. The christian religion is often able to help in an astonisheg good way to find a balance not to lose every contact to the reality all around. The percentage of schizophrenic people is in all cultures and civilisation of the world the same. You can use the reactions on schizophrenia in different cultures for cultureanthropological studies. I dont know what the USA is doing with schizophrenic people - but I'm sure you will find in christian populations more schizophrenic people on a very simple reason: the people are more tolerant and they help schizophrenic people in their lifes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that my belief is a superstitious nonsense while your belief is not existing?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no different that Greek mythology.  Lol.  They believed in their gods too.
Click to expand...


In the eyes of the ancient Greeks Christians were atheists - like their own philosophers. They did not believe in gods.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The rejection of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is confusing. If someone believes not in god  - what would be wrong if god exists otherwise it would be not wrong - what should this one reject? The belief of others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the rejection of belief in superstitious entities. What's hard to understand?  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so.  Doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I see it the right way then you reject my belief. But I have nothing to do with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that you are right at all.  Lol.
Click to expand...


So it makes no sense for you to speak with me, because you don't trust in my words. Why do you waste your time to read what I say?


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The rejection of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is confusing. If someone believes not in god  - what would be wrong if god exists otherwise it would be not wrong - what should this one reject? The belief of others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the rejection of belief in superstitious entities. What's hard to understand?  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so.  Doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I see it the right way then you reject my belief. But I have nothing to do with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that you are right at all.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it makes no sense for you to speak with me, because you don't trust in my words. Why do you waste your time to read what I say?
Click to expand...


For the sake of others of course!


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I meant.  I meant these kinds of people tend towards religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is also a belief. Schizophrenic people say something what's often very complex. We are  able to use their own structures in communications to help them not to go lost out of reality. The key is to try to understand - not to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of times they have persecution complexes, think that "gods" are speaking to them, etc.  Religion is a magnet for those with mental disorders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schizophrenic people are often reporting about voices. Once I thought this voices are like thoughts - but this is wrong. This are "real" voices. Loud voices. They say for example: "Jump out of the window! Now!" - but as real as such a voice seems to be - we have to help them not to believe in such voices. And it's extremly stupid to discuss with a paranoic person about the belief in god or about the belief in atheism. In this case they need our love  - they need our belief in god - our trust in god. They need us just simple in the way we are. And it's good to see that everything will end in a very positive way - if everyone is doing everything in the best possible ways. We have to be ourselves and not to be untrue, unreal or desperated or anything like this. It's good to be calm and clear. But I fear "atheism" is not clear in most cases, because atheists often believe they do not believe. Could be no belief is so confusing like atheism (=aspiritualism)  while only atheists think they are not confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief.  It is a lack of belief in superstitious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that my belief is a superstitious nonsense while your belief is not existing?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no different that Greek mythology.  Lol.  They believed in their gods too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the eyes of the ancient Greeks Christians were atheists - like their own philosophers. They did not believe in gods.
Click to expand...


Like I just posted in another thread, you can't brain wash people anymore.  You are a thing of the past.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> I find it interesting in that a lot of the religious folks will say that we cannot "question" their "god (s)".  Knowledge is a BAD thing according to most religions.



Do you speak with me now or with your god?


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is confusing. If someone believes not in god  - what would be wrong if god exists otherwise it would be not wrong - what should this one reject? The belief of others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the rejection of belief in superstitious entities. What's hard to understand?  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so.  Doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I see it the right way then you reject my belief. But I have nothing to do with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that you are right at all.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it makes no sense for you to speak with me, because you don't trust in my words. Why do you waste your time to read what I say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sake of others of course!
Click to expand...


Got it - you are wasting my time. Would it not be more easy to kill me, if you  like to reject what I am?


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the rejection of belief in superstitious entities. What's hard to understand?  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so.  Doesn't change anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I see it the right way then you reject my belief. But I have nothing to do with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that you are right at all.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it makes no sense for you to speak with me, because you don't trust in my words. Why do you waste your time to read what I say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sake of others of course!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it - you are wasting my time. Would it not be more easy to kill me, if you  like to reject what I am?
Click to expand...


Oh, another drama queen!  Lol.  Sorry, but you are a dying breed and that is a GOOD thing.    Religion is the cause of most of our problems in the world today.  It was begun by ignorant people thousands of years ago to brainwash and control the people.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I see it the right way then you reject my belief. But I have nothing to do with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that you are right at all.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it makes no sense for you to speak with me, because you don't trust in my words. Why do you waste your time to read what I say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sake of others of course!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it - you are wasting my time. Would it not be more easy to kill me, if you  like to reject what I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, another drama queen!  Lol.  Sorry, but you are a dying breed and that is a GOOD thing.
Click to expand...


I'm a dying breed and that's a good thing?



> Religion is the cause of most of our problems in the world today.  It was begun by ignorant people thousands of years ago to brainwash and control the people.



Religion began about 95000 years ago when not far away from the area where Jesus lived 2000 years ago parents buried the first time in prehistory their young son.




ChrisL said:


> ... Like I just posted in another thread, you can't brain wash people anymore.  You are a thing of the past.



I don't remember that you ever said so to me. But okay - Let's stop now brainwashing: You have my allowness not to believe in god. But do me the favor please not to expect any longer any answer on anything what you say here. I'm by the way indeed "a thing of the past" - that's not wrong. I hope you don't switch off the sun because it is a thing of the past too. Things of the past need things of the past.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that you are right at all.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it makes no sense for you to speak with me, because you don't trust in my words. Why do you waste your time to read what I say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sake of others of course!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it - you are wasting my time. Would it not be more easy to kill me, if you  like to reject what I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, another drama queen!  Lol.  Sorry, but you are a dying breed and that is a GOOD thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a dying breed and that's a good thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is the cause of most of our problems in the world today.  It was begun by ignorant people thousands of years ago to brainwash and control the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion began about 95000 years ago when not far away from the area where Jesus lived 2000 years ago parents buried the first time in prehistory their young son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Like I just posted in another thread, you can't brain wash people anymore.  You are a thing of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't remember that you ever said so to me. But okay - Let's stop now brainwashing: You have my allowness not to believe in god. But do me the favor please not to expect any longer any answer on anything what you say here. I'm by the way indeed "a thing of the past" - that's not wrong. I hope you don't switch off the sun because it is a thing of the past too. Things of the past need things of the past.
Click to expand...


Do some research and educate yourself.  People are turning away from religion more than ever before.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it makes no sense for you to speak with me, because you don't trust in my words. Why do you waste your time to read what I say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of others of course!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it - you are wasting my time. Would it not be more easy to kill me, if you  like to reject what I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, another drama queen!  Lol.  Sorry, but you are a dying breed and that is a GOOD thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a dying breed and that's a good thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is the cause of most of our problems in the world today.  It was begun by ignorant people thousands of years ago to brainwash and control the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion began about 95000 years ago when not far away from the area where Jesus lived 2000 years ago parents buried the first time in prehistory their young son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Like I just posted in another thread, you can't brain wash people anymore.  You are a thing of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't remember that you ever said so to me. But okay - Let's stop now brainwashing: You have my allowness not to believe in god. But do me the favor please not to expect any longer any answer on anything what you say here. I'm by the way indeed "a thing of the past" - that's not wrong. I hope you don't switch off the sun because it is a thing of the past too. Things of the past need things of the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do some research and educate yourself.  People are turning away from religion more than ever before.
Click to expand...


Brillant idea. Then there's more place in paradise for me and my people. Bye bye.


----------



## Militants

I may say in Swedish for someone Asa even I can not be in both Finnish and Swedish, and English is easier to make than to talk. Do not understand why language is so hard and talk. Would someone in this way, or is it in my nature difficult to talk.

Can handle myself and live for myself anyway, I can not talk even though I said now in Google translate off course from Swedish to English. Outlandish rule to speak more than understand language but I can't in that way. I must understand to speak.


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> I may say in Swedish for someone Asa even I can not be in both Finnish and Swedish, and English is easier to make than to talk. Do not understand why language is so hard and talk. Would someone in this way, or is it in my nature difficult to talk.
> 
> Can handle myself and live for myself anyway, I can not talk even though I said now in Google translate off course from Swedish to English. Outlandish rule to speak more than understand language but I can't in that way. I must understand to speak.



Lost in translation? What's your mother tongue?


----------



## Militants

Don't understand what you mean with my mother.


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> It is the rejection of *belief in superstitious entities. *What's hard to understand? Seems pretty straightforward to me. I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so. Doesn't change anything.


How do you know that those entities are superstitious if you deny their existence? Actually you acknowledge their existence if you think they are superstitious, no?


----------



## defcon4

zaangalewa said:


> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may say in Swedish for someone Asa even I can not be in both Finnish and Swedish, and English is easier to make than to talk. Do not understand why language is so hard and talk. Would someone in this way, or is it in my nature difficult to talk.
> 
> Can handle myself and live for myself anyway, I can not talk even though I said now in Google translate off course from Swedish to English. Outlandish rule to speak more than understand language but I can't in that way. I must understand to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lost in translation? What's your mother tongue?
Click to expand...

Swedish....


----------



## Militants

Manny Swedish people against me because they is stupidfy or is it Swedish God ?


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> Don't understand what you mean with my mother.



What is the name of the language of your mother?


----------



## zaangalewa

defcon4 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may say in Swedish for someone Asa even I can not be in both Finnish and Swedish, and English is easier to make than to talk. Do not understand why language is so hard and talk. Would someone in this way, or is it in my nature difficult to talk.
> 
> Can handle myself and live for myself anyway, I can not talk even though I said now in Google translate off course from Swedish to English. Outlandish rule to speak more than understand language but I can't in that way. I must understand to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lost in translation? What's your mother tongue?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Swedish....
Click to expand...


I doubt about. Between english or german and swedish is not such a far distance in the logic and the meaning of basic expressions.

_
"The Lord has called us from different nations, but we must be united with one heart and one soul. In the divine heart of Jesus we will always meet one another ..."_
Rightous among the nations: Saint Mary Elizabeth Hesselblad


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The rejection of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is confusing. If someone believes not in god  - what would be wrong if god exists otherwise it would be not wrong - what should this one reject? The belief of others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the rejection of belief in superstitious entities. What's hard to understand?  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so.  Doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I see it the right way then you reject my belief. But I have nothing to do with you. So I don't understand this attitude. I don't think you have a big idea about me nor about my belief.
Click to expand...

Everyone can tell that you're an idiot.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Damaged Eagle said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.
> 
> Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.
> 
> You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67220
> 
> I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.
> 
> Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.
> 
> You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.
> 
> Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?
> 
> Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.
> 
> Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.
> 
> But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.
> 
> So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 67225
> 
> I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.
> 
> I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?
> 
> ****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...



I found this logical and informative...

*"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"*
by Andrew Parker 



Parker is a scientist.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Damaged Eagle said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it possible that neither is the case? That there are no gods, but science doesn't hold all the answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps...  But if everything we do and seem is but a dream within a dream...
> 
> Who's dreaming the dream and wouldn't they be considered God?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...




*"Pascal's Wager* is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century Frenchphilosopher, mathematician and physicistBlaise Pascal (1623–62).[1] It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.
> 
> Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.
> 
> You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67220
> 
> I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.
> 
> Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.
> 
> You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.
> 
> Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?
> 
> Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.
> 
> Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.
> 
> But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.
> 
> So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 67225
> 
> I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.
> 
> I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?
> 
> ****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I found this logical and informative...
> 
> *"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"*
> by Andrew Parker
> 
> 
> 
> Parker is a scientist.
Click to expand...


Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully -  but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had  happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen  - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.

I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science. This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.
> 
> Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.
> 
> You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67220
> 
> I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.
> 
> Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.
> 
> You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.
> 
> Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?
> 
> Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.
> 
> Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.
> 
> But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.
> 
> So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 67225
> 
> I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.
> 
> I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?
> 
> ****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I found this logical and informative...
> 
> *"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"*
> by Andrew Parker
> 
> 
> 
> Parker is a scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully -  but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had  happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen  - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
> This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.
Click to expand...



"I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."

Exactly
Genesis Correlates With Modern Science


God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system.
The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy

Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.
a.  An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.


And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they?   Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.

Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
a.  For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness_was_upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that_it was_good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


 Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. 

There follows an order of events of the creation. 
A pretty specific order of events. 
And it’s surprisingly accurate.


----------



## Mudda

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67220
> 
> I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.
> 
> Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.
> 
> You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.
> 
> Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?
> 
> Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.
> 
> Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.
> 
> But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.
> 
> So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 67225
> 
> I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.
> 
> I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?
> 
> ****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I found this logical and informative...
> 
> *"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"*
> by Andrew Parker
> 
> 
> 
> Parker is a scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully -  but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had  happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen  - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
> This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."
> 
> Exactly
> Genesis Correlates With Modern Science
> 
> 
> God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system.
> The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
> The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
> In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
> 
> Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.
> a.  An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.
> 
> 
> And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
> The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
> So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
> And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
> Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they?   Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
> Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
> 
> Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> a.  For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness_was_upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that_it was_good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.
> 
> There follows an order of events of the creation.
> A pretty specific order of events.
> And it’s surprisingly accurate.
Click to expand...

How did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and back again?


----------



## ChrisL

Militants said:


> Manny Swedish people against me because they is stupidfy or is it Swedish God ?



Well, let me help you out  . . .  it is "many."  I'm sure that you know how to use google, correct?  Stop acting please.  Thanks.


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67220
> 
> I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.
> 
> Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.
> 
> You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.
> 
> Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?
> 
> Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.
> 
> Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.
> 
> But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.
> 
> So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 67225
> 
> I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.
> 
> I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?
> 
> ****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I found this logical and informative...
> 
> *"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"*
> by Andrew Parker
> 
> 
> 
> Parker is a scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully -  but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had  happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen  - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
> This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."
> 
> Exactly
> Genesis Correlates With Modern Science
> 
> 
> God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.
Click to expand...

From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.



> The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
> 
> The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
> In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
> 
> Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.


One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.



> a.  An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.
> 
> 
> And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
> The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
> So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?


I fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this is okay for me too. He's the creator not I. But the idea  to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.



> And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
> 
> Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they?   Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
> Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
> 
> Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> a.  For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness_was_upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that_it was_good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.
> 
> There follows an order of events of the creation.
> A pretty specific order of events.
> And it’s surprisingly accurate.



As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.


Christmas is in you. English subtitles:

Letter to grandpa:
Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy

Answer:
For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.
> 
> Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.
> 
> But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.
> 
> So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67225
> 
> I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.
> 
> I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?
> 
> ****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I found this logical and informative...
> 
> *"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"*
> by Andrew Parker
> 
> 
> 
> Parker is a scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully -  but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had  happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen  - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
> This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."
> 
> Exactly
> Genesis Correlates With Modern Science
> 
> 
> God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
> 
> The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
> In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
> 
> Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a.  An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.
> 
> 
> And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
> The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
> So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this okay for me too. He's the creator. But the idea  to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
> 
> Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they?   Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
> Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
> 
> Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> a.  For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness_was_upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that_it was_good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.
> 
> There follows an order of events of the creation.
> A pretty specific order of events.
> And it’s surprisingly accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.
> 
> 
> Christmas is in you. English subtitles:
> 
> Letter:
> Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy
> 
> Answer:
> For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa
Click to expand...




God is with a capital 'g.'


----------



## Luddly Neddite

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67225
> 
> I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.
> 
> I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...
> 
> It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?
> 
> ****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found this logical and informative...
> 
> *"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"*
> by Andrew Parker
> 
> 
> 
> Parker is a scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully -  but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had  happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen  - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
> This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."
> 
> Exactly
> Genesis Correlates With Modern Science
> 
> 
> God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
> 
> The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
> In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
> 
> Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a.  An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.
> 
> 
> And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
> The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
> So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this okay for me too. He's the creator. But the idea  to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
> 
> Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they?   Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
> Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
> 
> Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> a.  For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness_was_upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that_it was_good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.
> 
> There follows an order of events of the creation.
> A pretty specific order of events.
> And it’s surprisingly accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.
> 
> 
> Christmas is in you. English subtitles:
> 
> Letter:
> Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy
> 
> Answer:
> For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is with a capital 'g.'
Click to expand...



Which god?

It would not be capitalized unless you're talking about a particular god and there are many to choose from.

Even then, it would not capitalized unless one believes its a real 'thing'. A discussion of myths, legend and superstitions do not require capitalization.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Luddly Neddite said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found this logical and informative...
> 
> *"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"*
> by Andrew Parker
> 
> 
> 
> Parker is a scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully -  but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had  happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen  - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
> This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."
> 
> Exactly
> Genesis Correlates With Modern Science
> 
> 
> God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
> 
> The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
> In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
> 
> Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a.  An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.
> 
> 
> And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
> The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
> So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this okay for me too. He's the creator. But the idea  to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
> 
> Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they?   Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
> Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
> 
> Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> a.  For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness_was_upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that_it was_good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.
> 
> There follows an order of events of the creation.
> A pretty specific order of events.
> And it’s surprisingly accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.
> 
> 
> Christmas is in you. English subtitles:
> 
> Letter:
> Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy
> 
> Answer:
> For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is with a capital 'g.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which god?
> 
> It would not be capitalized unless you're talking about a particular god and there are many to choose from.
> 
> Even then, it would not capitalized unless one believes its a real 'thing'. A discussion of myths, legend and superstitions do not require capitalization.
Click to expand...



Maybe this will help lead you out of the fog:

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh



Don't forget to capitalize 'God.'


----------



## M3sIah

As God didn't excist, neighter I did not my job to reveal, what's about to happen  (Just look my previous message & let enlighteness be a happiness happening, ... till soon)


----------



## ChrisL

M3sIah said:


> As God didn't excist, neighter I did not my job to reveal, what's about to happen  (Just look my previous message & let enlighteness be a happiness happening, ... till soon)



Nobody knows what you're talking about though.


----------



## ChrisL

Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.




America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.

I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.


----------



## M3sIah

Nope I do not rethink, I thought it over day & night years on years on; so it could be will go in peace overfload ~ truely nobody understands, but when it happens everybody knows  www.unitedone.info


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
Click to expand...


Er no.  My post stands.  Crazies love their religions.


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
Click to expand...


Must be why abortion IS in fact legal, eh?    Lol.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er no.  My post stands.  Crazies love their religions.
Click to expand...



Imagine....if you only had an education.

But...that's quite a stretch.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why abortion IS in fact legal, eh?    Lol.
Click to expand...



No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.

Didn't you know that?

I'd use the term 'penumbra'....but that would leave you in the dark.


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why abortion IS in fact legal, eh?    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.
> 
> Didn't you know that?
Click to expand...


Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why abortion IS in fact legal, eh?    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.
> 
> Didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
Click to expand...



I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'

And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.


----------



## M3sIah

love sint  lol magicaly days ahead isn't?  vocabulairy is a wealth of transformings positions to understand a normal language!


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why abortion IS in fact legal, eh?    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.
> 
> Didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
Click to expand...


It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.


----------



## ChrisL

M3sIah said:


> love sint  lol magicaly days ahead isn't?  vocabulairy is a wealth of transformings positions to understand a normal language!



Learn how to spell before you talk about "normal" language.


----------



## M3sIah

Yes religion = freedom, why do one than be afraid of the truth? which what will come in fruit, what is ever been telling about the time now: salvation is coming?


----------



## M3sIah

Nobody in the now, has ever know what is been told, or was & is been hided away from the Words.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must be why abortion IS in fact legal, eh?    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.
> 
> Didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
Click to expand...



I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"

And you responded thus: "It is here in America."


Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?

Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be why abortion IS in fact legal, eh?    Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.
> 
> Didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"
> 
> And you responded thus: "It is here in America."
> 
> 
> Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?
> 
> Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
> Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.
Click to expand...


Morality is subjective.  Nobody has to live by your rules, silly!  Mind your business.


----------



## PoliticalChic

M3sIah said:


> Nobody in the now, has ever know what is been told, or was & is been hided away from the Words.





Does the keeper know you've chewed through the restrains again?


----------



## M3sIah

Everyone has restrains, that is not the matter, but we have to work together to chew the restrains. But how can one seeds wealth if everyone is closing his own? If we yearn in openess, friendship is about to blossom & we keep on loving...


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.
> 
> Didn't you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"
> 
> And you responded thus: "It is here in America."
> 
> 
> Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?
> 
> Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
> Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective.  Nobody has to live by your rules, silly!  Mind your business.
Click to expand...


"Morality is subjective."

I don't have the time or interest in giving you the lesson you so sorely require....but...

If there's no God - declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore *morality is, again, purely subjective.*                                                                                                                                                     Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t mean it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side.                                                                                                                                            Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.                          Prager
A serial killer operates via your motto "Morality is subjective."                                                                                                                                                                                        I don't expect you to benefit from the above, but felt I needed to provide it.


----------



## MaryL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


No. same thing could be  asked of religion: If everything needs a preceding event/creator, then were did GOD come from? And where did THAT come from, ad infinitum. Perhaps this is an unanswerable question, and perhaps, it doesn't matter.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaryL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. same thing could be  asked of religion: If everything needs a preceding event/creator, then were did GOD come from? And where did THAT come from, ad infinitum. Perhaps this is an unanswerable question, and perhaps, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...




Clearly you don't understand the meaning inherent in the term "God."


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
Click to expand...

The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.And politicalchic before you question ppl's abilty to think, I might suggest to actually show some critical thinking yourself. For instance the whole op here start with the assertion that since the big bang happened but since we don't know how or why it has to be a miracle. In religion 'we dont know' is not an answer, when in doubt god is responsible. The problem is that over the millenia, very gradually we as a species have found more and more answers to questions that used to be in religious domain. Nearly every time religion resisted and every time it had to aquies. If the whole basis of being religious is having faith without the availability of proof, even more, being proven wrong in alot of areas, I find it insanely ironic you questioning ppl's ability to think.


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"
> 
> And you responded thus: "It is here in America."
> 
> 
> Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?
> 
> Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
> Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective.  Nobody has to live by your rules, silly!  Mind your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Morality is subjective."
> 
> I don't have the time or interest in giving you the lesson you so sorely require....but...
> 
> If there's no God - declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore *morality is, again, purely subjective.*                                                                                                                                                     Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t mean it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side.                                                                                                                                            Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.                          Prager
> A serial killer operates via your motto "Morality is subjective."                                                                                                                                                                                        I don't expect you to benefit from the above, but felt I needed to provide it.
Click to expand...


You know what they say . . . if you NEED religion to make you a good person, you really are not a good person at all.


----------



## MaryL

PoliticalChic said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. same thing could be  asked of religion: If everything needs a preceding event/creator, then were did GOD come from? And where did THAT come from, ad infinitum. Perhaps this is an unanswerable question, and perhaps, it doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't understand the meaning inherent in the term "God."
Click to expand...

I don't have YOUR understanding of "god". Remind me-where did god come from? IF everything needs a creator.


----------



## dani67

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"
> 
> And you responded thus: "It is here in America."
> 
> 
> Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?
> 
> Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
> Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective.  Nobody has to live by your rules, silly!  Mind your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Morality is subjective."
> 
> I don't have the time or interest in giving you the lesson you so sorely require....but...
> 
> If there's no God - declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore *morality is, again, purely subjective.*                                                                                                                                                     Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t mean it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side.                                                                                                                                            Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.                          Prager
> A serial killer operates via your motto "Morality is subjective."                                                                                                                                                                                        I don't expect you to benefit from the above, but felt I needed to provide it.
Click to expand...



you dont rape child because god told you ?


----------



## M3sIah

It's the same question, where did you coming from? and so on, so on, ... I've to go now. What is from me is from you & vica versa, still this world do not do ... life could be so much easier & fun when we do, ... but the time will come we shall see the truth & will be found within us. Have a good day! & lovely regards. For as last note: The morality is our immortally when we have been given immortally, why do we than pain ourself so hard to follow a system which behold our freedom to live like we wish to live & to give us a chance to build an endless empire?, & why people say when you have no money, you can do nothing, may they have no life? You have to work? Do you know why those terrorist are fighting, do you know why people kill each other? They see no future or see no opening to release themself or find a job in this failure system & we are walking blind into the foulnishments of money & the in captured wealth & so as well it neglects our natives. & ps. There's so much wealth in the world, everyone can be pleased, but we close it up, for who? for what? to waste it! Therefor the sentence: what's from me, is for you & vica versa, if you need than something, someone will give it to you, cuz everyone deals with there wealths to rest of our labor to build up freetime, which means to come in peace (wisly freedom); gather together &build out something great, so a new skyline will arisen, with facilities which one wants to have in.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.And politicalchic before you question ppl's abilty to think, I might suggest to actually show some critical thinking yourself. For instance the whole op here start with the assertion that since the big bang happened but since we don't know how or why it has to be a miracle. In religion 'we dont know' is not an answer, when in doubt god is responsible. The problem is that over the millenia, very gradually we as a species have found more and more answers to questions that used to be in religious domain. Nearly every time religion resisted and every time it had to aquies. If the whole basis of being religious is having faith without the availability of proof, even more, being proven wrong in alot of areas, I find it insanely ironic you questioning ppl's ability to think.
Click to expand...



There is a clear reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.


----------



## PoliticalChic

dani67 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"
> 
> And you responded thus: "It is here in America."
> 
> 
> Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?
> 
> Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
> Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective.  Nobody has to live by your rules, silly!  Mind your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Morality is subjective."
> 
> I don't have the time or interest in giving you the lesson you so sorely require....but...
> 
> If there's no God - declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore *morality is, again, purely subjective.*                                                                                                                                                     Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t mean it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side.                                                                                                                                            Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.                          Prager
> A serial killer operates via your motto "Morality is subjective."                                                                                                                                                                                        I don't expect you to benefit from the above, but felt I needed to provide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you dont rape child because god told you ?
Click to expand...



What a stupid post.


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.And politicalchic before you question ppl's abilty to think, I might suggest to actually show some critical thinking yourself. For instance the whole op here start with the assertion that since the big bang happened but since we don't know how or why it has to be a miracle. In religion 'we dont know' is not an answer, when in doubt god is responsible. The problem is that over the millenia, very gradually we as a species have found more and more answers to questions that used to be in religious domain. Nearly every time religion resisted and every time it had to aquies. If the whole basis of being religious is having faith without the availability of proof, even more, being proven wrong in alot of areas, I find it insanely ironic you questioning ppl's ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


You are entitled to your religious beliefs.  Keep them to yourself and apply them to your own life.  Nobody else is obligated to live by your rules.  K?


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaryL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. same thing could be  asked of religion: If everything needs a preceding event/creator, then were did GOD come from? And where did THAT come from, ad infinitum. Perhaps this is an unanswerable question, and perhaps, it doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't understand the meaning inherent in the term "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have YOUR understanding of "god". Remind me-where did god come from? IF everything needs a creator.
Click to expand...



Eternal is inherent in the concept.

You may have to look up the meaning of those terms.


----------



## M3sIah

make it a bit lolly instead of being so serious  Yes He's here, but still is not been accept. (good night my friends). For as last, where are we coming from? If we are coming from the monkeys, where did they came from? In the early born of earth there was only dust & fire @ earth, then soon came the sea & fishes? Did one ever fished? Try 1 day laying a fish onto dry @ earth, would it be transformed into a dinosaurus? Over duration of million years than? I think this fish was been dust before he could be transformed -- God must be created us to give us joy on earth, still there's no joy cuz no-one follow the way in enlightenments, so God has to come to let us see again how we can enjoy our lives, ...  Jesus is about to come, He is already in Jesus Christ & says: joy may come soon ...  love & peace my beloved friends.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.And politicalchic before you question ppl's abilty to think, I might suggest to actually show some critical thinking yourself. For instance the whole op here start with the assertion that since the big bang happened but since we don't know how or why it has to be a miracle. In religion 'we dont know' is not an answer, when in doubt god is responsible. The problem is that over the millenia, very gradually we as a species have found more and more answers to questions that used to be in religious domain. Nearly every time religion resisted and every time it had to aquies. If the whole basis of being religious is having faith without the availability of proof, even more, being proven wrong in alot of areas, I find it insanely ironic you questioning ppl's ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your religious beliefs.  Keep them to yourself and apply them to your own life.  Nobody else is obligated to live by your rules.  K?
Click to expand...



What are you afraid of?
Education?


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.And politicalchic before you question ppl's abilty to think, I might suggest to actually show some critical thinking yourself. For instance the whole op here start with the assertion that since the big bang happened but since we don't know how or why it has to be a miracle. In religion 'we dont know' is not an answer, when in doubt god is responsible. The problem is that over the millenia, very gradually we as a species have found more and more answers to questions that used to be in religious domain. Nearly every time religion resisted and every time it had to aquies. If the whole basis of being religious is having faith without the availability of proof, even more, being proven wrong in alot of areas, I find it insanely ironic you questioning ppl's ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your religious beliefs.  Keep them to yourself and apply them to your own life.  Nobody else is obligated to live by your rules.  K?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of?
> Education?
Click to expand...


I'm not afraid.  Like I said, you are entitled to believe in your gods and worship them and live your life how you choose.  So is everyone else.  Mind your business and take care of your own house.


----------



## ChrisL

God is a theory in which some of you choose to believe.  You can think abortion is murder, or you can think whatever you want.  You do NOT have the right to force your morality onto others who do not share your views.  Get over yourselves.


----------



## MaryL

Maybe the universe always existed, and didn't need a ETERNAL supreme being  to create it? What do we need a God for? One way or the other, we exist and we are here NOW.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.And politicalchic before you question ppl's abilty to think, I might suggest to actually show some critical thinking yourself. For instance the whole op here start with the assertion that since the big bang happened but since we don't know how or why it has to be a miracle. In religion 'we dont know' is not an answer, when in doubt god is responsible. The problem is that over the millenia, very gradually we as a species have found more and more answers to questions that used to be in religious domain. Nearly every time religion resisted and every time it had to aquies. If the whole basis of being religious is having faith without the availability of proof, even more, being proven wrong in alot of areas, I find it insanely ironic you questioning ppl's ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your religious beliefs.  Keep them to yourself and apply them to your own life.  Nobody else is obligated to live by your rules.  K?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of?
> Education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid.  Like I said, you are entitled to believe in your gods and worship them and live your life how you choose.  So is everyone else.  Mind your business and take care of your own house.
Click to expand...



1.As I said....not 'like I said.'
2. It is not MY God....and God is capitalized
3. This nation and its laws are based on religion.
4. *John Adams* in a speech to the military in 1798... "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." 


Try very hard to be smarter.


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.And politicalchic before you question ppl's abilty to think, I might suggest to actually show some critical thinking yourself. For instance the whole op here start with the assertion that since the big bang happened but since we don't know how or why it has to be a miracle. In religion 'we dont know' is not an answer, when in doubt god is responsible. The problem is that over the millenia, very gradually we as a species have found more and more answers to questions that used to be in religious domain. Nearly every time religion resisted and every time it had to aquies. If the whole basis of being religious is having faith without the availability of proof, even more, being proven wrong in alot of areas, I find it insanely ironic you questioning ppl's ability to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your religious beliefs.  Keep them to yourself and apply them to your own life.  Nobody else is obligated to live by your rules.  K?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of?
> Education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid.  Like I said, you are entitled to believe in your gods and worship them and live your life how you choose.  So is everyone else.  Mind your business and take care of your own house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.As I said....not 'like I said.'
> 2. It is not MY God....and God is capitalized
> 3. This nation and its laws are based on religion.
> 4. *John Adams* in a speech to the military in 1798... "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
> 
> 
> Try very hard to be smarter.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you don't have the right here in this country to force yourself into other people's personal lives.  Must be tough for you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your religious beliefs.  Keep them to yourself and apply them to your own life.  Nobody else is obligated to live by your rules.  K?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of?
> Education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid.  Like I said, you are entitled to believe in your gods and worship them and live your life how you choose.  So is everyone else.  Mind your business and take care of your own house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.As I said....not 'like I said.'
> 2. It is not MY God....and God is capitalized
> 3. This nation and its laws are based on religion.
> 4. *John Adams* in a speech to the military in 1798... "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
> 
> 
> Try very hard to be smarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you don't have the right here in this country to force yourself into other people's personal lives.  Must be tough for you.
Click to expand...



Clearly you have the right to be ignorant.
Bet you get tired of hearing that, huh?

Robert’s Rules of Order: “where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty.”


----------



## ChrisL

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your religious beliefs.  Keep them to yourself and apply them to your own life.  Nobody else is obligated to live by your rules.  K?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you afraid of?
> Education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not afraid.  Like I said, you are entitled to believe in your gods and worship them and live your life how you choose.  So is everyone else.  Mind your business and take care of your own house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1.As I said....not 'like I said.'
> 2. It is not MY God....and God is capitalized
> 3. This nation and its laws are based on religion.
> 4. *John Adams* in a speech to the military in 1798... "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
> 
> 
> Try very hard to be smarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you don't have the right here in this country to force yourself into other people's personal lives.  Must be tough for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you have the right to be ignorant.
> Bet you get tired of hearing that, huh?
> 
> Robert’s Rules of Order: “where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty.”
Click to expand...


What is it you are doing to stop this tragedy???  Lol.    Shut up.  You don't care about other people's embryos, you fool.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.







So now you're saying a belief in God is synonymous with being a religious nut job?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why abortion IS in fact legal, eh?    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.
> 
> Didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
Click to expand...






If it's freedom then why does the government have to provide tax dollars, taken at the point of a government sword, to places like Planned Parenthood?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.And politicalchic before you question ppl's abilty to think, I might suggest to actually show some critical thinking yourself. For instance the whole op here start with the assertion that since the big bang happened but since we don't know how or why it has to be a miracle. In religion 'we dont know' is not an answer, when in doubt god is responsible. The problem is that over the millenia, very gradually we as a species have found more and more answers to questions that used to be in religious domain. Nearly every time religion resisted and every time it had to aquies. If the whole basis of being religious is having faith without the availability of proof, even more, being proven wrong in alot of areas, I find it insanely ironic you questioning ppl's ability to think.
Click to expand...






I have all the evidence I need to know God exists... Perhaps you need to go back and read the whole thread of the OP who happens to be myself.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"
> 
> And you responded thus: "It is here in America."
> 
> 
> Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?
> 
> Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
> Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective.  Nobody has to live by your rules, silly!  Mind your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Morality is subjective."
> 
> I don't have the time or interest in giving you the lesson you so sorely require....but...
> 
> If there's no God - declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore *morality is, again, purely subjective.*                                                                                                                                                     Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t mean it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side.                                                                                                                                            Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.                          Prager
> A serial killer operates via your motto "Morality is subjective."                                                                                                                                                                                        I don't expect you to benefit from the above, but felt I needed to provide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what they say . . . if you NEED religion to make you a good person, you really are not a good person at all.
Click to expand...






Does not having being religious make everybody a good person?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

MaryL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. same thing could be  asked of religion: If everything needs a preceding event/creator, then were did GOD come from? And where did THAT come from, ad infinitum. Perhaps this is an unanswerable question, and perhaps, it doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't understand the meaning inherent in the term "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have YOUR understanding of "god". Remind me-where did god come from? IF everything needs a creator.
Click to expand...






Your argument is a straw man.

By definition God is and always will be.

Define infinity.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity.And politicalchic before you question ppl's abilty to think, I might suggest to actually show some critical thinking yourself. For instance the whole op here start with the assertion that since the big bang happened but since we don't know how or why it has to be a miracle. In religion 'we dont know' is not an answer, when in doubt god is responsible. The problem is that over the millenia, very gradually we as a species have found more and more answers to questions that used to be in religious domain. Nearly every time religion resisted and every time it had to aquies. If the whole basis of being religious is having faith without the availability of proof, even more, being proven wrong in alot of areas, I find it insanely ironic you questioning ppl's ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your religious beliefs.  Keep them to yourself and apply them to your own life.  Nobody else is obligated to live by your rules.  K?
Click to expand...







I see... So now we can defund the tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood and tell them to rely on charitable donations just like religious organizations do.

Just because you have your laws granting your freedom does not mean everyone has to pay into the kitty to fund it.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> God is a theory in which some of you choose to believe.  You can think abortion is murder, or you can think whatever you want.  You do NOT have the right to force your morality onto others who do not share your views.  Get over yourselves.








Can you and those who follow your morality do the same?

I think not since you need to rely on the government to provide tax dollars, provided by everyone at the point of a government sword, to support or enforce your morality.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## waltky

*If God doesn't exist...*

... den who's dat up in Heaven...

... rollin' bowlin' balls around...

... makin' all dem thunderin' sounds?


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 67225
> 
> I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.
> 
> I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...
> 
> It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?
> 
> ****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found this logical and informative...
> 
> *"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"*
> by Andrew Parker
> 
> 
> 
> Parker is a scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully -  but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had  happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen  - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
> This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."
> 
> Exactly
> Genesis Correlates With Modern Science
> 
> 
> God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
> 
> The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
> In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
> 
> Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a.  An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.
> 
> 
> And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
> The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
> So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this okay for me too. He's the creator. But the idea  to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
> 
> Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they?   Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
> Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
> 
> Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun?  So says science. And so says Genesis.  Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.
> a.  For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness_was_upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that_it was_good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> 
> Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.
> 
> There follows an order of events of the creation.
> A pretty specific order of events.
> And it’s surprisingly accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.
> 
> 
> Christmas is in you. English subtitles:
> 
> Letter:
> Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy
> 
> Answer:
> For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is with a capital 'g.'
Click to expand...


He said to me the little "g" in "god" is okay. It's a nice letter.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why abortion IS in fact legal, eh?    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.
> 
> Didn't you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
Click to expand...


Interesting definition what you think what freedom is.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No....that would because the Left corrupted that system.
> 
> Didn't you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but most people do support freedom.  You can take your religion an shove it up your smelly bum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"
> 
> And you responded thus: "It is here in America."
> 
> 
> Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?
> 
> Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
> Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective.
Click to expand...


Morality is an intersubjective truth. For example in the way of the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant: "_Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction._"



> Nobody has to live by your rules, silly!  Mind your business.



Nobody has to have any form of moral - but the consequence of a lack of moral lead often into a prison. On the other side lives a person with a high moral standard normally not in conflict with public laws. The conflict starts in this moment when the laws have nothing to do with justice any longer. That's  for example a problem in case of abortion. A human being will be killed in case of abortion - and this is often only a private decision - although this hurts the human right to live.


----------



## zaangalewa

MaryL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. same thing could be  asked of religion: If everything needs a preceding event/creator, then were did GOD come from? And where did THAT come from, ad infinitum. Perhaps this is an unanswerable question, and perhaps, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Saint Augustine gave an answer to this question about 1600 years ago. He said such a question is senseless because god created time. "Before" it was created was no time so we are not able to ask "What was before?". He said the creating word of god was a timeless word.


----------



## zaangalewa

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity. ...
Click to expand...


What's by the way a very christian idea because Jesus Christ said "_My kingdom is not of this world. _..."


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'
> 
> And, there is that Liberal white flag....vulgarity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"
> 
> And you responded thus: "It is here in America."
> 
> 
> Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?
> 
> Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
> Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective.  Nobody has to live by your rules, silly!  Mind your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Morality is subjective."
> 
> I don't have the time or interest in giving you the lesson you so sorely require....but...
> 
> If there's no God - declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore *morality is, again, purely subjective.*                                                                                                                                                     Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t mean it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side.                                                                                                                                            Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.                          Prager
> A serial killer operates via your motto "Morality is subjective."                                                                                                                                                                                        I don't expect you to benefit from the above, but felt I needed to provide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what they say . . . if you NEED religion to make you a good person, you really are not a good person at all.
Click to expand...


I guess you're misunderstand something: Christians are not good persons - we are sinners like everyone else. Because we know we are sinners this is a chance not to be a slave of sins forever. That's all. But people who try not to be a slave of sins are normally not the worst people - as long as they don't "fall". Unfortunatelly there's absolutelly no guarantee for anyone not to fall. As long as we are alive we are able to make everything wrong - but on the other side: As long as anyone lives - maybe even longer - everyone has also always a good chance. And we know: god helps us - and that's not bad.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> God is a theory in which some of you choose to believe.  You can think abortion is murder, or you can think whatever you want.  You do NOT have the right to force your morality onto others who do not share your views.  Get over yourselves.



Everyone has every right "to force" (better to say "to help to understand") the sovereigns of a country to take care to make the best laws for all human beings and every life. Unfortunatelly some sovereigns (=citizens) don't like to hear something what fits not to their own prejudices and would force them to start to think again about still unsolved problems.


----------



## zaangalewa

MaryL said:


> Maybe the universe always existed, and didn't need a ETERNAL supreme being  to create it? What do we need a God for? One way or the other, we exist and we are here NOW.



But why? Why exists something without any plausible reason? This makes no sense. I tried it many ways to question this - but im absolutelly not able to doubt about to live in a senseful world. On the other side my own traumata could force me to think in such a way, because it would be better for my life to do so. But why should it be better? So tell me: Are you really able to think your life is worth nothing and only a game of not existing bad evil "gods"?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Damaged Eagle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is here in America.  Also, women have been aborting babies since ancient times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this: "I hope you aren't suggesting that killing another human being is your 'freedom.'"
> 
> And you responded thus: "It is here in America."
> 
> 
> Are you inarticulate or really, really immoral?
> 
> Any other human beings you feel the right to slaughter?
> Perhaps you should be penned up before you injure anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective.  Nobody has to live by your rules, silly!  Mind your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Morality is subjective."
> 
> I don't have the time or interest in giving you the lesson you so sorely require....but...
> 
> If there's no God - declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore *morality is, again, purely subjective.*                                                                                                                                                     Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t mean it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side.                                                                                                                                            Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.                          Prager
> A serial killer operates via your motto "Morality is subjective."                                                                                                                                                                                        I don't expect you to benefit from the above, but felt I needed to provide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what they say . . . if you NEED religion to make you a good person, you really are not a good person at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 67703
> 
> Does not having being religious make everybody a good person?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...



My fav radio personality is Dennis Prager....and he says something very much like that.
If you were walking down a dark street and say a group of men approaching....wouldn't you feel better if you knew they had just attended a prayer meeting.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> God is a theory in which some of you choose to believe.  You can think abortion is murder, or you can think whatever you want.  You do NOT have the right to force your morality onto others who do not share your views.  Get over yourselves.




Abortion may not be murder, as it is legal up to a point....

...but it certainty is the killing of another human being.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er no.  My post stands.  Crazies love their religions.
Click to expand...


The not-crazies love their religion too, specially Christians. Christianity is the religion of love. So everyone who is crazy is welcome too in our religiion. We'll find a way.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er no.  My post stands.  Crazies love their religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The not-crazies love their religion too, specially Christians. Christianity is the religion of love. So everyone who is crazy is welcome too in our religiion. We'll find a way.
Click to expand...

Christianity is the religion where the god drowns everyone who's not on the boat with all the animals.


----------



## james bond

If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.

Atheists do exist.

Atheists state God does not exist.

Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..

Thus, God exists.

Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.

Do you see any problems with the logic above?


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?


Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er no.  My post stands.  Crazies love their religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The not-crazies love their religion too, specially Christians. Christianity is the religion of love. So everyone who is crazy is welcome too in our religiion. We'll find a way.
Click to expand...


Ahh.  So you think your religion is the "better" one?  Is that right?


----------



## ChrisL

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
Click to expand...


Agree.  That post was stupid as hell.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er no.  My post stands.  Crazies love their religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The not-crazies love their religion too, specially Christians. Christianity is the religion of love. So everyone who is crazy is welcome too in our religiion. We'll find a way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianity is the religion where the god drowns everyone who's not on the boat with all the animals.
Click to expand...


I remember being a little girl and hearing these "stories" and thinking, wow, what a rotten thing that God is!


----------



## james bond

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
Click to expand...


No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?

The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?

I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.  

So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?


----------



## james bond

ChrisL said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  That post was stupid as hell.  Lol.
Click to expand...


I just asked a question.  If you're so smart, then where is the error?


----------



## Bond27

There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bond27 said:


> There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.




*"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe."  Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'*


Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.


----------



## Bond27

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe."  Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'*
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.
Click to expand...


Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com

I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bond27 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe."  Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'*
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com
> 
> I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.
Click to expand...



Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart,* the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:  *

 “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that* if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” * Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent


----------



## PoliticalChic

*The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

You may find this.....enlightening.

*
" …according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. 

Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. 

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."


----------



## Bond27

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe."  Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'*
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com
> 
> I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart,* the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:  *
> 
> “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that* if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” * Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent
Click to expand...


Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.


----------



## Militants

Gud help my voices in my brain.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bond27 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe."  Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'*
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com
> 
> I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart,* the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:  *
> 
> “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that* if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” * Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.
Click to expand...




"Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."


1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
That makes said hypotheses theology.
What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.

Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.


In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
“*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."


----------



## Bond27

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is nothing these days to suggest the need or existence of a creator entity. Or this creator is detached to his creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe."  Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'*
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com
> 
> I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart,* the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:  *
> 
> “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that* if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” * Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Click to expand...


What religion do you belong to?


----------



## Militants

Bond27 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
Click to expand...


You from Hungary how have places within willings ??


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bond27 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe."  Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'*
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should contact Hawkings forthwith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com
> 
> I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart,* the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:  *
> 
> “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that* if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” * Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
Click to expand...


None of your business.

But I understand yours: science.


----------



## Bond27

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com
> 
> I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart,* the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:  *
> 
> “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that* if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” * Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
Click to expand...


It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bond27 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart,* the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:  *
> 
> “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that* if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” * Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.
Click to expand...


1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
Nonsense.
I use logic, education and experience.

2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
and
b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist),  certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for *unsubstantiated just-so stories,* because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."

Science???*


----------



## Bond27

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
> Nonsense.
> I use logic, education and experience.
> 
> 2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
> a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
> and
> b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.
> 
> 3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
> This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.
> 
> I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist),  certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
> 
> He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for *unsubstantiated just-so stories,* because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
> 
> Did you get that???
> *"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> Science???*
Click to expand...


So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting. 

The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bond27 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
> Nonsense.
> I use logic, education and experience.
> 
> 2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
> a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
> and
> b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.
> 
> 3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
> This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.
> 
> I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist),  certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
> 
> He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for *unsubstantiated just-so stories,* because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
> 
> Did you get that???
> *"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> Science???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.
> 
> The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.
Click to expand...



I'm an educated person.

I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science....*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."



Now...that is the real industry.*


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Stephen Hawking really concede to Intelligent Design? - ThatsFake.com
> 
> I don't see any other source reporting that. I highly doubt he'd backtrack on the theory he pushed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart,* the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:  *
> 
> “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that* if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” * Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
Click to expand...

Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.


----------



## Bond27

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
> Nonsense.
> I use logic, education and experience.
> 
> 2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
> a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
> and
> b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.
> 
> 3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
> This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.
> 
> I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist),  certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
> 
> He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for *unsubstantiated just-so stories,* because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
> 
> Did you get that???
> *"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> Science???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.
> 
> The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an educated person.
> 
> I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science....*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> 
> 
> Now...that is the real industry.*
Click to expand...


How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing? 

I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart,* the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place:  *
> 
> “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that* if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” * Interview with Lenny Susskind | Uncommon Descent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.
Click to expand...



If it is based on faith, it is theology.

"The assumption in science, gets tested, "

Really?

When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?

How about 
*"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" *
by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins 


Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.


I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bond27 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
> Nonsense.
> I use logic, education and experience.
> 
> 2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
> a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
> and
> b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.
> 
> 3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
> This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.
> 
> I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist),  certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
> 
> He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for *unsubstantiated just-so stories,* because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
> 
> Did you get that???
> *"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> Science???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.
> 
> The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an educated person.
> 
> I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science....*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> 
> 
> Now...that is the real industry.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?
> 
> I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.
Click to expand...



Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"

I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.


----------



## Bond27

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
> Nonsense.
> I use logic, education and experience.
> 
> 2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
> a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
> and
> b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.
> 
> 3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
> This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.
> 
> I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist),  certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
> 
> He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for *unsubstantiated just-so stories,* because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
> 
> Did you get that???
> *"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> Science???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.
> 
> The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an educated person.
> 
> I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science....*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> 
> 
> Now...that is the real industry.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?
> 
> I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"
> 
> I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.
Click to expand...


You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bond27 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
> Nonsense.
> I use logic, education and experience.
> 
> 2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
> a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
> and
> b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.
> 
> 3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
> This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.
> 
> I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist),  certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
> 
> He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for *unsubstantiated just-so stories,* because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
> 
> Did you get that???
> *"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> Science???*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.
> 
> The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an educated person.
> 
> I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science....*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> 
> 
> Now...that is the real industry.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?
> 
> I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"
> 
> I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.
Click to expand...



No I'm not.

I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.


----------



## Bond27

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.
> 
> The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an educated person.
> 
> I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science....*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> 
> 
> Now...that is the real industry.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?
> 
> I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"
> 
> I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.
Click to expand...


Creationism is a farce, science doesn't claim to understand purpose of life or get into matters of faith. I'm not sure where I claimed that. But, science has helped dispel creationism theories, such as the ones in Abrahamic faiths.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory. We need more evidence or date, or scientific publications in support of design theory. Which I don't believe we have at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it is based on faith, it is theology.
> 
> "The assumption in science, gets tested, "
> 
> Really?
> 
> When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?
> 
> How about
> *"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" *
> by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins
> 
> 
> Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’
Click to expand...

Simple extrapolation started the big bang theory. 
Group

First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
this kinda shows my point. The extrapolation was observed. An assumption was made on that observation. Then tests where thought up for that assumption and a consensus was reached.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Not having an answer doesn't validate the creation theory."
> 
> 
> 1. I never said it did. I say that it requires faith.....just as any of the 'scientific' hypotheses do.
> That makes said hypotheses theology.
> What I have shown is that there is as much evidence for either thesis.
> And....that there is as much faith required to believe whatever tale science supposes and to believe that God created the universe out of nothing.
> 
> Now...be sure to let me know if you accept the multiverse idea.
> 
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.”Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. Inquestion 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. *Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. *Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Both Dawkins and Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
> Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because *space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang!* *So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics.*
> “*So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”* Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it is based on faith, it is theology.
> 
> "The assumption in science, gets tested, "
> 
> Really?
> 
> When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?
> 
> How about
> *"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" *
> by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins
> 
> 
> Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple extrapolation started the big bang theory.
> Group
> 
> First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
> Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
> Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
> Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
> this kinda shows my point. The extrapolation was observed. An assumption was made on that observation. Then tests where thought up for that assumption and a consensus was reached.
Click to expand...


This was your claim:
"The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned."

Good to see how rapidly you've retreated.


Here's the latest nonsense from fake science.....

*"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning" (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


And this will be tested......how?

And when?
*


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.
> 
> The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an educated person.
> 
> I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science....*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> 
> 
> Now...that is the real industry.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?
> 
> I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"
> 
> I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.
Click to expand...

3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.

I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for *unsubstantiated just-so stories,*because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Did you get that???
*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."*
Now what i would like is an example of that kind of science please? Since you believe it puts science on the same lvl as religion.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it is based on faith, it is theology.
> 
> "The assumption in science, gets tested, "
> 
> Really?
> 
> When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?
> 
> How about
> *"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" *
> by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins
> 
> 
> Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple extrapolation started the big bang theory.
> Group
> 
> First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
> Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
> Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
> Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
> this kinda shows my point. The extrapolation was observed. An assumption was made on that observation. Then tests where thought up for that assumption and a consensus was reached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was your claim:
> "The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned."
> 
> Good to see how rapidly you've retreated.
> 
> 
> Here's the latest nonsense from fake science.....
> 
> *"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning" (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp
> 
> 
> And this will be tested......how?
> 
> And when?*
Click to expand...

show me my retreat? there was an assumption it was tested and if you check, the different kinds of tests where confirmed at different times, showing that it was constantly questioned. Even your post shows different theories are still tried. I don't see your point. Science doesn't claim to have all the truth by it's definition it's fluid. Only religion claims to have absolute truths. Your are apparently of the opinion that since science can't answer every question, god has to exist. Since religion does answer every question. I'm saying that religion only has all the answers because it's followers are not ALLOWED to question said answers.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of your business.
> 
> But I understand yours: science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling science religion shows you have little understanding of how science works. At its worst science starts with an assumption. Religion on the other hand stops with an assumption, namely the existence of a supreme being. The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned. Science constantly evolves and elaborates. Religion will only do so under the most pressing circumstances. Science is NOT even close to religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it is based on faith, it is theology.
> 
> "The assumption in science, gets tested, "
> 
> Really?
> 
> When can we expect the 'scientific' understanding of the Big Bang to be tested?
> 
> How about
> *"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" *
> by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins
> 
> 
> Be sure to announce when this nonsense is to be tested.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know that if you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sounds like ‘oranges.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple extrapolation started the big bang theory.
> Group
> 
> First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
> Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
> Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
> Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
> this kinda shows my point. The extrapolation was observed. An assumption was made on that observation. Then tests where thought up for that assumption and a consensus was reached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was your claim:
> "The assumption in science, gets tested, after that it gets verified and after that it gets constantly questioned."
> 
> Good to see how rapidly you've retreated.
> 
> 
> Here's the latest nonsense from fake science.....
> 
> *"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning" (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp
> 
> 
> And this will be tested......how?
> 
> And when?*
Click to expand...

Oh and btw asking me about how and when stuff will be tested is stupid. I am not an astronomer, and even if I was I doubt I'dd be smart enough to come up with a way to test the kind of things where talking about. That's why ppl who do develop such tests can get nobel prices.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?



Do you speak with me? I asked someting completly different - In your way to think it is maybe: "Why is logic here?" Why are you able to write what you wrote  - although it could be it is completly senseless to write or to think or to feel and to communicate? Are you able to believe: "_Everything what I said never made any sense and never will make any sense._"? If we say senseless things - lives not in this case in everyone of us the hope: "_Senselessness is not everything!_" and lives in us all not the hope that we will find a piece from this, what's all around and/or within us, so we are able to say: "_Yes, it's worth to live for this piece, although I never will know what the complete picture will be!_"?


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> ... You from Hungary how have places within willings ??



Maybe I start to understand slowly. Are you Nick?


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er no.  My post stands.  Crazies love their religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The not-crazies love their religion too, specially Christians. Christianity is the religion of love. So everyone who is crazy is welcome too in our religiion. We'll find a way.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh.  So you think your religion is the "better" one?  Is that right?
Click to expand...


What can I say? I'm a Catholic - my wife is a Protestant. She's not convinced I am right - I am not convinced she is right. But she reads crime novels. Should I be worried?


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> Gud help my voices in my brain.



Oha ...


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
Click to expand...

If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob.  Lol.  Oh boy!  The crazies love their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.
> 
> I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er no.  My post stands.  Crazies love their religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The not-crazies love their religion too, specially Christians. Christianity is the religion of love. So everyone who is crazy is welcome too in our religiion. We'll find a way.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh.  So you think your religion is the "better" one?  Is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What can I say? I'm a Catholic - my wife is a Protestant. She's not convinced I am right - I am not convinced she is right. But she reads crime novels. Should I be worried?
Click to expand...

You should be worried that you follow a religion full of pedophile priests, and a drunk looking moron for pope.


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> ... How about
> *"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" *
> by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins  ....



Since the universe is something is  - indeed this something is everything what we are able to study in science. "Before" was nothing we are able to say anything about on plausible reasons - not even a before  - and "outside" is only an inside because there is no outside we are able to say anything about on plausible reasons. So what are they calling "there"? Logos? Mathematics?


----------



## Militants

zaangalewa said:


> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You from Hungary how have places within willings ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I start to understand slowly. Are you Nick?
Click to expand...


I am no Nick the Dick.

Attila are one old friend how will change places when I start to think.

Attila are the same like God from England but Gud doesn't help me.


----------



## Militants

I am only 50 or 80 precents atheist. Lutheran God doesn't help me with belief so I am atheist.


----------



## zaangalewa

Bond27 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an educated person.
> 
> I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science....*"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
> 
> 
> 
> Now...that is the real industry.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?
> 
> I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"
> 
> I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationism is a farce, science doesn't claim to understand purpose of life or get into matters of faith. I'm not sure where I claimed that. But, science has helped dispel creationism theories, such as the ones in Abrahamic faiths.
Click to expand...


I don't know what "creationism" is - but the expression "creation" is not a farce. Darwin for example created the theory of evolution.


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You from Hungary how have places within willings ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I start to understand slowly. Are you Nick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am no Nick the Dick.
Click to expand...


I thought about Nick the reindeer. But I got it now. You are a joker.



> Attila are one old friend how will change places when I start to think.
> 
> Attila are the same like God from England but Gud doesn't help me.



Atilla? Was this not one of the seven dwarfs?


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> I am only 50 or 80 precents atheist. Lutheran God doesn't help me with belief so I am atheist.



God is freedom - so you have a choice. You don't know the way - that's your problem.`


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?
> 
> I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"
> 
> I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationism is a farce, science doesn't claim to understand purpose of life or get into matters of faith. I'm not sure where I claimed that. But, science has helped dispel creationism theories, such as the ones in Abrahamic faiths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "creationism" is - but the expression "creation" is not a farce. Darwin for example created the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


Darwin didn't "create" the theory.  His theory was based on observations from a scientific viewpoint and the evolutionary changes he observed in animals that were isolated on an island.  Lol.  Silly!


----------



## PoliticalChic

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"
> 
> I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationism is a farce, science doesn't claim to understand purpose of life or get into matters of faith. I'm not sure where I claimed that. But, science has helped dispel creationism theories, such as the ones in Abrahamic faiths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "creationism" is - but the expression "creation" is not a farce. Darwin for example created the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't "create" the theory.  His theory was based on observations from a scientific viewpoint and the evolutionary changes he observed in animals that were isolated on an island.  Lol.  Silly!
Click to expand...




Of course that is not true.

Nor has there been  any....any ....new species observed in the century and a half since Darwin.

 "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."

Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


----------



## james bond

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
Click to expand...


God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you speak with me? I asked someting completly different - In your way to think it is maybe: "Why is logic here?" Why are you able to write what you wrote  - although it could be it is completly senseless to write or to think or to feel and to communicate? Are you able to believe: "_Everything what I said never made any sense and never will make any sense._"? If we say senseless things - lives not in this case in everyone of us the hope: "_Senselessness is not everything!_" and lives in us all not the hope that we will find a piece from this, what's all around and/or within us, so we are able to say: "_Yes, it's worth to live for this piece, although I never will know what the complete picture will be!_"?
Click to expand...


We're assuming an universe with no God.

If what the OP stated is true, then there are no atheists.  Who would say I believe in no no God?  It would be silly.

That said, in this world we have atheists, so it means there is a God.

You can substitute a belief in God (God) or belief in no God (atheism) and that's fine.

I'm just saying that only the above two conditions can exist.

What do you expect from a post that starts out if no God?  You can't expect much.


----------



## ChrisL

Believe me, not many people would like to believe in a "heaven" more than me.  But . . . no.    Just not plausible.  Of course, like anyone, sometimes I do wonder, but then my logic takes over.


----------



## ChrisL

People used to believe in vampires and werewolves too.  Lol.  They actually thought they had evidence of vampires but they did not.  The evidence they saw was a normal process of decay.  The body gets bloated and sometimes blood will come out of the nose and mouth (of course this was before we did "preservation" techniques and drained the body of blood, etc.).  So they would see corpses that looked "fat" and saw blood coming out of their mouths and thought they were awakening and sucking blood.  

Let's not forget about the belief in "witches" too, where they killed many men and women for being "witches."  Lol.  

So to me, religious beliefs are not anymore believable and a god or gods are just another thing that ignorant people of the past attributed natural events to.  

Does that make sense?


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
Click to expand...

You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?


----------



## ChrisL

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
Click to expand...


I call fart smoke!


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> Darwin didn't "create" the theory.  His theory was based on observations from a scientific viewpoint and the evolutionary changes he observed in animals that were isolated on an island.  Lol.  Silly!



More the diversity of the species on the Galapagos and Australia.

To this day there is no rational explanation of the platypus other than as a transitional species between mammal and reptile. It was this that really drove Darwin to recognize that species evolve from other or lower forms.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationism is a farce, science doesn't claim to understand purpose of life or get into matters of faith. I'm not sure where I claimed that. But, science has helped dispel creationism theories, such as the ones in Abrahamic faiths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "creationism" is - but the expression "creation" is not a farce. Darwin for example created the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't "create" the theory.  His theory was based on observations from a scientific viewpoint and the evolutionary changes he observed in animals that were isolated on an island.  Lol.  Silly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is not true.
> 
> Nor has there been  any....any ....new species observed in the century and a half since Darwin.
> 
> "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
> 
> Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
Click to expand...

Tell me how do you think evolution work? One generation you have a ostrich the next generation  a chicken? This process takes hundreds of tousands of years. Comes the question of classifacation of a new species. When is a species new.
are these new species?
As to your professor. First of all he is an extreme minority in the scientific world. Second as I was saying yesterday. Science doesn't deal in absolutes by its nature its fluid. Religion does deal in absolutes. Creatonism is a very absolute view of the bible. I don't need to prove evolution every time you find a dissenter. On the other hand if you come out with the extraordinary claim that an omnipotent being was directly responsible for creating every living thing on earth you need to come up with a stronger case then 'it sais so in the bible'.


----------



## ChrisL




----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bond27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"
> 
> I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a case for creationism, I never said I believe in 'fake science' or whatever that is. I don't subscribe to any theories, I don't believe a God exists. There is meaning or purpose to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not.
> 
> I'm simply revealing that what ever creationism is, what you believe is science is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationism is a farce, science doesn't claim to understand purpose of life or get into matters of faith. I'm not sure where I claimed that. But, science has helped dispel creationism theories, such as the ones in Abrahamic faiths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "creationism" is - but the expression "creation" is not a farce. Darwin for example created the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin didn't "create" the theory.
Click to expand...


I heard Darwin was only the first who published this theory - others had the same ideas. Whoelse did?



> His theory was based on observations from a scientific viewpoint and the evolutionary changes he observed in animals that were isolated on an island.  Lol.  Silly!



So there was a plan (= a teleological structure) behind the creation of the theory of evolution. A plan follows in most cases inspirations. So maybe the community of the natural scientists created the theory of evolution with their inspirations.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


>



Dr. House is not real but a fiction only. What knows a fiction about reality?


----------



## forkup

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. House is not a real but a fiction only. What knows a fiction about reality?
Click to expand...

My friend unless you can prove me wrong, i consider the christian bible just as fictional.


----------



## zaangalewa

forkup said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. House is not a real but a fiction only. What knows a fiction about reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My friend
Click to expand...


¿friend? ... strange, very strange ...



> unless you can prove me wrong, i consider the christian bible just as fictional.



Everyone is for everyone else always only a fiction of the own power of imaginations. You don't know anything about me. You "know" only what you think about me. Nevertheless I'm not a fiction. I say what I think and I don't think the fictional character "Dr. Gregory House" says, what  the real existing actor "Mr. Hugh Laurie" thinks.


----------



## forkup

zaangalewa said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. House is not a real but a fiction only. What knows a fiction about reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿friend? ... strange, very strange ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unless you can prove me wrong, i consider the christian bible just as fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is for everyone else always only a fiction of the own imaginations. You don't know anything about me. You "know" only what you think about me. Nevertheless I'm not a fiction. I say what I think. I don't think the fictional character "Dr. Gregory House" says what  the real existing actor "Mr. Hugh Laurie" thinks.
> 
> It's for me personaly by the way completly unimportant what you think about the bible. Why should anyone ask you anything in context with the bible?
Click to expand...

Sorry for caling you friend,apperently it was offensive, anyways moving on. I kinda have a hard time understanding your posts. Just to give context to my post. I don't believe you are fictional and of course you give your opinion, after all this is a discussion board. You dismissed chrisl posts as something irrelevant because she used a quote of a fictional character. Nobody here thinks House is real but the quote does make sense. Me and Chris and all atheist believe that the only way you can be religious is that, at least as far as religion is concerned you have to stop thinking rationally. Not saying you are not rational but religion by definition, requires believing without having proof of your assumption ,namely that there is a god and more specifically that all he does is literally described in the bible. Hope this is helpfull.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. House is not a real but a fiction only. What knows a fiction about reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿friend? ... strange, very strange ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unless you can prove me wrong, i consider the christian bible just as fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is for everyone else always only a fiction of the own power of imaginations. You don't know anything about me. You "know" only what you think about me. Nevertheless I'm not a fiction. I say what I think and I don't think the fictional character "Dr. Gregory House" says, what  the real existing actor "Mr. Hugh Laurie" thinks.
Click to expand...


Typical phony "Christian."  Lol.  What would Jesus say?


----------



## ChrisL

I've known many, many people who claim to be "Christians."  They are NOT good people.  They prove it all the time!  Hypocrites who talk a big talk but FAIL at walking the walk.


----------



## forkup

ChrisL said:


> I've known many, many people who claim to be "Christians."  They are NOT good people.  They prove it all the time!  Hypocrites who talk a big talk but FAIL at walking the walk.


 I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed and I'll go even further. I've found pieces of the new testament important in my morality. Then again I've also taken life lessons from fairy tales, my parents, friends and family, not to mention my own common sense. I will rarely call ppl names and altough my ego will compell me to try to convince other ppl of me being right. I think I show respect to ppl who do believe in other things then I do. I think that the most important lesson found in the NT is the story of the good samaritan, wich teaches us, and I'm simplifying here, that being a good person has little to do with being a religious person.


----------



## ChrisL

forkup said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've known many, many people who claim to be "Christians."  They are NOT good people.  They prove it all the time!  Hypocrites who talk a big talk but FAIL at walking the walk.
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised Roman Catholic, I was baptised and confirmed and I'll go even further. I've found pieces of the new testament important in my morality. Then again I've also taken life lessons from fairy tales, my parents, friends and family, not to mention my own common sense. I will rarely call ppl names and altough my ego will compell me to try to convince other ppl of me being right. I think I show respect to ppl who do believe in other things then I do. I think that the most important lesson found in the NT is the story of the good samaritan, wich teaches us, and I'm simplifying here, that being a good person has little to do with being a religious person.
Click to expand...


I'm probably not as nice as you are about things.  Lol.


----------



## forkup

I heard Darwin was only the first who published this theory - others had the same ideas. Whoelse did?
Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
that's the person your refering to btw


----------



## james bond

ChrisL said:


> Believe me, not many people would like to believe in a "heaven" more than me.  But . . . no.    Just not plausible.  Of course, like anyone, sometimes I do wonder, but then my logic takes over.



I didn't start thinking that way, but considered the afterlife, i.e. is there an afterlife?


----------



## james bond

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then atheists do not exist.
> 
> Atheists do exist.
> 
> Atheists state God does not exist.
> 
> Thus, atheists are wrong about God's non-existence..
> 
> Thus, God exists.
> 
> Thus, it has to either be both God and atheists exist or neither exist.
> 
> Do you see any problems with the logic above?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
Click to expand...


The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?

There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.


----------



## Militants

I will the Lutheran God to exist.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
Click to expand...

Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.


----------



## zaangalewa

forkup said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. House is not a real but a fiction only. What knows a fiction about reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿friend? ... strange, very strange ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unless you can prove me wrong, i consider the christian bible just as fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is for everyone else always only a fiction of the own imaginations. You don't know anything about me. You "know" only what you think about me. Nevertheless I'm not a fiction. I say what I think. I don't think the fictional character "Dr. Gregory House" says what  the real existing actor "Mr. Hugh Laurie" thinks.
> 
> It's for me personaly by the way completly unimportant what you think about the bible. Why should anyone ask you anything in context with the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry for caling you friend,
Click to expand...





> apperently it was offensive, anyways moving on. I kinda have a hard time understanding your posts.



My words are only shadows.The real world is somewhere else.



> Just to give context to my post. I don't believe you are fictional and of course you give your opinion, after all this is a discussion board. You dismissed chrisl posts as something irrelevant because she used a quote of a fictional character. Nobody here thinks House is real but the quote does make sense.


The source of this words is the unknown author not the well known actor.


> Me and Chris and all atheist believe



You know a lot of people 



> that the only way you can be religious



?



> is that, at least as far as religion is concerned you have to stop thinking rationally.



I never said I'm not an idiot. So I don't expect from anyone else not to be an idiot too - from time to time.



> Not saying you are not rational but religion by definition,



¿by definition? Who cares about definitions? Definitions are able to be wrong too and the definitions you are accpting or your selfdefinitions or interpretations and selfinterpretations are your own problem.



> requires believing without having proof of your assumption ,namely that there is a god and more specifically that all he does is literally described in the bible. Hope this is helpfull.



A Christian says "I believe in god" - this is alway true as long as he believes in god - otherwise someone says for example: "I lost my belief in god". Some days ago for example I heard from someone who lost not only family members but also his trust in god. He suffers a lot  - I'm very sad about. I hope his friends are able to help him.

You say "god is not real " - what you don't know. Your atheism is your way - that's all. I don't know, why god sent you this way - there will be reasons. But in my eyes you are not helpfull.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> 
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
Click to expand...




forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> 
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
Click to expand...


It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.   

As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.

Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.

So the first proof of God is based on the following:
 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.

The second proof of God goes as follows:
 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.

On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.


----------



## zaangalewa

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> 
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
Click to expand...


The problem is more complex because god created existance. Was he existing when existance did not exist? A stupid question, I know, because we are not really able to ask this question and to find an answer. And god could indeed exist and not exist the same time - he's allmighty, more mighty than only endless mighty - but we would not be able to believe so, without killing our logic. As far as I can see we have to do the decision to believe in god or not to believe in god. But on the other side I personally never made this decision. God was always with me as long as I remember. But that is maybe an exception, because  I had problems when I was a very little child. I was in an uncomparable way isolated and hospitalized for 1.5 years within the first six years of my life. I don't know what I did, felt or thought in those days. Nevertheless god is maybe since ever existing in every heart and we need only the key to open our hearts if we like to find him everywhere in the worlds.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
Click to expand...

This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.


----------



## zaangalewa

forkup said:


> I heard Darwin was only the first who published this theory - others had the same ideas. Whoelse did?
> Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> that's the person your refering to btw



Thank you. A very impressing person. Is it possible to say "Darwin was a racist - Wallace not"?


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. House is not a real but a fiction only. What knows a fiction about reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿friend? ... strange, very strange ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unless you can prove me wrong, i consider the christian bible just as fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone is for everyone else always only a fiction of the own power of imaginations. You don't know anything about me. You "know" only what you think about me. Nevertheless I'm not a fiction. I say what I think and I don't think the fictional character "Dr. Gregory House" says, what  the real existing actor "Mr. Hugh Laurie" thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical phony "Christian."  Lol.  What would Jesus say?
Click to expand...


He says to me a "I am with you" in a form of warming feeling inside what looks like a little red lake of warmth and feels also somehow like the idea of a tender embrace all around me. I don't know wether Mr. Hugh Laurie believes in god or not. Indeed this is completly unimportant for me. I 'hate' only this form of mindmanipulating propaganda.

Take Bruno Ganz as another example. A wonderful actor. He played not only the person "Hitler" very very good - and has absolutely nothing to do with any thought of this dictator. Nothing is like Hitler in the person of Mr. Bruno Ganz. Or take the other extreme: Take Tom Cruise as another example. He played Graf Stauffenberg in the film "Operation Walküre"  - and he has less than nothing to do with this freedom fighter but is in the opposit a mindmanipulating leader of a criminal organisation with the name "Scientology".


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drinking this early in the morning is your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
Click to expand...

Your premise is wrong. You give only two choices when it could very well be that there is no God but yes there are atheists. You don't give a good reason why the third way is not viable.
And what's your argument for a god even existing?


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


It just means we don't know yet.

And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.

If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?

Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.

So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?

You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.

The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade


----------



## sealybobo

there4eyeM said:


> We should remember how our minds and our thinking are limited by our languages. This often leads to unsupportable assumptions and logic-loops.
> Since we cannot explain some things, especially something so important as existence, we force nouns and terms to fit our fears. The universe must have had a start, yet there must have been a precedent.
> What makes us insist on that? Since we know that we don't know, how can we ask  the question, "what was before the beginning?", when the very question posits an oxymoron? There can be no "before the beginning". Yet, human thinking cannot tolerate, nor indeed digest, such a thought.
> We need to let go more.
> Or, we can just use 'God' as a metaphor to help us along until we grow into a fuller understanding.


Whatever created our universe should be loved respected appreciated and feared. And life should be too. If I shoot and kill a deer I respect appreciate love and fear the deer.

I would never hurt anything needlessly.


----------



## Mudda

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
Click to expand...

How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."

How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up? 
How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities? 
What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".

You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.


----------



## sealybobo

Mudda said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
Click to expand...

When you are programmed to assume God is real it's hard to even consider it's not.

And OK so what maybe there is a creator. Is that all? Or are they gonna now say he visited their ancestors thousands of years ago and brought a message.

This is how primitive we still are.

This morning the professor on Gilligans island said it best. The more primitive the tribe the more superstitious. Yes the professor was a scientist and atheist.


----------



## there4eyeM

Would not one need to know what perfect is in order to know that one weren't?


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ...If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle? ...



Yes.  ... And not only this situation. Life is always a miracle.


----------



## there4eyeM

If everything is a miracle, ....


----------



## sealybobo

there4eyeM said:


> If everything is a miracle, ....


Seems whatever we can't explain is a miracle. I think as an atheist I'm completely fine with someone saying they believe in God. We've probably been having that debate since we started talking or maybe hundreds of thousands of years later or somewhere in between. We have curious imaginative superstitious minds and we don't like not having all the answers and we hate the thought of death.

The only people I have a problem with are the founders of the Mormon jehova Muslim Jewish and Christian faiths. Organized religions who've been putting one over on us for thousands of years


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> It just means we don't know yet.



So it was a miracle...

"A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
Oxford Dictionary

...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?



sealybobo said:


> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.



I do believe it does.



sealybobo said:


> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?



What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?



sealybobo said:


> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.



Where did I state that?



sealybobo said:


> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?



I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.



sealybobo said:


> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.



Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?



sealybobo said:


> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade



What lies would those be?





Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> If everything is a miracle, ....



Under your feet are some particles of dust. Take some glue and make a figure of an ant out if this dust. It would be a wonder if you would be able to do so in this way. It's nearly impossible  to produce in such a way something what someone could identify as a kind of picture of an ant. Some people are destroying ants and make them to dust on no special reason to do so only because they do not to live in respect. This ants will become dust - what's not a wonder.

By the way: And some people build archs without any idea how to build an arch, because it is the will of god to do so. They are often called "crazy people".


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Is it not a miracle once it can be explained. The ants odds were 1 million to one. Lucky day.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
Click to expand...


This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.


1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.* 

2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. 

4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. 

5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.* 

6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine

Miracle .....or coincidence?


----------



## there4eyeM

Schrodinger's miracle; it is and it isn't at the same time.

Yes, in a grand, poetic sense we could call life a miracle. In another grand sense, as life is all that there is, that is all it is.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everything is a miracle, ....
> 
> 
> 
> Seems whatever we can't explain is a miracle. ...
Click to expand...


I's always a miracle if we are able to explain something - but this makes what we explain not less wonderful. Is "light" less wonderful only because we know it's a part of the electromagnetical spectrum? It's extremly in the opposit, because we also know in this case that our psychological structure creates a ring of colors where violett is as well the color of the deepest point of the spectrum of light as well the color of the highest point of the spectrum of light. And what is not wonderful if we see colors?

_A wonder is not in contradiction to the natural laws - it is in contradiction to our knowledge about the natural laws._
Saint Aurelius Augustinus (11/13/354 - 08/28/430)


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
Click to expand...


And if today was Monday, it wouldn't be Sunday. 

Miracle ......or coincidence?

*CI301:  The Anthropic Principle*

*Claim CI301:*
The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life. If any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, life would be impossible. (This claim is also known as the weak anthropic principle.)

*Source:*
Ross, Hugh. 1994. Astronomical evidences for a personal, transcendent God. In: _The Creation Hypothesis_, J. P. Moreland, ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, pp. 141-172.
*Response:*

The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos. 

We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible. 

Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes. 


If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it? 


Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002). 

How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument. 


The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible. 


If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else. 


Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000). 


In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.


----------



## Mudda

It's a miracle that this thread didn't die of stupidity.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it not a miracle once it can be explained. The ants odds were 1 million to one. Lucky day.
Click to expand...








It seems to me that being lucky meets the same criteria as being miraculous don't you think?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> ........................................................
> 
> In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.








How do you know God hasn't?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## PoliticalChic

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it not a miracle once it can be explained. The ants odds were 1 million to one. Lucky day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that being lucky meets the same criteria as being miraculous don't you think?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...




Love Queen! Big fan!


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it not a miracle once it can be explained. The ants odds were 1 million to one. Lucky day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that being lucky meets the same criteria as being miraculous don't you think?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love Queen! Big fan!
Click to expand...

Freddy was gay you know. I'm sure you liking him comforts him in hell for all eternity


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it not a miracle once it can be explained. The ants odds were 1 million to one. Lucky day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that being lucky meets the same criteria as being miraculous don't you think?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love Queen! Big fan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freddy was gay you know. I'm sure you liking him comforts him in hell for all eternity
Click to expand...



Of course I know.
I found it interesting that he belonged to the Zoroastrianism religion.
Do you know there is a Zoroastrianism dating society.....and they believe in leaving the bodies of their dead for the vultures....to turn them back into nature?


I have idea where he wound up.
Nor why you'd wish that on him.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not a miracle once it can be explained. The ants odds were 1 million to one. Lucky day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that being lucky meets the same criteria as being miraculous don't you think?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love Queen! Big fan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freddy was gay you know. I'm sure you liking him comforts him in hell for all eternity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know.
> I found it interesting that he belonged to the Zoroastrianism religion.
> Do you know there is a Zoroastrianism dating society.....and they believe in leaving the bodies of their dead for the vultures....to turn them back into nature?
> 
> 
> I have idea where he wound up.
> Nor why you'd wish that on him.
Click to expand...

I don't wish it on him nor do I believe he's in hell. I was mocking people who believe he's in hell because he was gay and now to boot he wasn't a Christian? Oh he's roasting for sure.

And that dude earlier asked me what's the harm in jesus' message. 

Well if Jesus didn't say gays and non Christians are going to hell, why do so many Christians believe it?

Don't get mad at us your religion stinks.

And I don't tell people in person their God isn't real. That would be rude. That's what the Internet's for.

If Isaak Newton only had the internet or met an atheist


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not a miracle once it can be explained. The ants odds were 1 million to one. Lucky day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that being lucky meets the same criteria as being miraculous don't you think?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love Queen! Big fan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freddy was gay you know. I'm sure you liking him comforts him in hell for all eternity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know.
> I found it interesting that he belonged to the Zoroastrianism religion.
> Do you know there is a Zoroastrianism dating society.....and they believe in leaving the bodies of their dead for the vultures....to turn them back into nature?
> 
> 
> I have idea where he wound up.
> Nor why you'd wish that on him.
Click to expand...

I don't wish it on him nor do I believe he's in hell. I was mocking people who believe he's in hell because he was gay and now to boot he wasn't a Christian? Oh he's roasting for sure.

And that dude earlier asked me what's the harm in jesus' message. 

Well if Jesus didn't say gays and non Christians are going to hell, why do so many Christians believe it?

Don't get mad at us your religion stinks.

And I don't tell people in person their God isn't real. That would be rude. That's what the Internet's for.

If Isaak Newton only had the internet or met an atheist


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
Click to expand...


Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
Click to expand...

Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you. 

So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique


----------



## OZman

sealybobo said:


> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique



So they keep telling us sealy; might be true, but at this stage it is nothing more than speculation.


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> ... We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. ...



The condition for life are not unknowable: Energy is such a condition. Space is such a condition. Time too. Even the ability to write informations in every kind of energy, radiation and material is such a condition. Water is also such a condition. No one has only a little idea about how life could exist without water and the ability of water to transport energy and material ... And life needs also always a good balance between all extremes. We are lucky that the universe all around and within the solar system is a little boring  - or with other words: stable enough so we are able to be here. ... and so on, and so on.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not a miracle once it can be explained. The ants odds were 1 million to one. Lucky day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that being lucky meets the same criteria as being miraculous don't you think?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love Queen! Big fan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freddy was gay you know. I'm sure you liking him comforts him in hell for all eternity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know.
> I found it interesting that he belonged to the Zoroastrianism religion.
> Do you know there is a Zoroastrianism dating society.....and they believe in leaving the bodies of their dead for the vultures....to turn them back into nature?
> 
> 
> I have idea where he wound up.
> Nor why you'd wish that on him.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't wish it on him nor do I believe he's in hell. I was mocking people who believe he's in hell because he was gay and now to boot he wasn't a Christian? Oh he's roasting for sure.
> 
> And that dude earlier asked me what's the harm in jesus' message.
> 
> Well if Jesus didn't say gays and non Christians are going to hell, why do so many Christians believe it?
> 
> Don't get mad at us your religion stinks.
> 
> And I don't tell people in person their God isn't real. That would be rude. That's what the Internet's for.
> 
> If Isaak Newton only had the internet or met an atheist
Click to expand...





I wonder if you could find any of my posts stating any of those things you'er pretending I've said.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
Click to expand...



"Life in our universe is probably not rare."


There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.


----------



## sealybobo

OZman said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they keep telling us sealy; might be true, but at this stage it is nothing more than speculation.
Click to expand...

But that's not what they keep telling us. For thousands of years "they" said we were all alone.

But what do we know? We just recently discovered a new planet in our own solar system we didn't know was there.

Like Neil degrass Tyson said, the five main elements are all around us. They are everywhere. And we now believe life once lived on Mars and Venus. In fact Mars rocks might have been what started life on earth. A meteor hit Mars and flung Mars rock into space and bacteria in those rocks is what started life here.

Point is, science sees that life is probably not that rare or uncommon. Science explains your belief that life is rare is ignorant. 

But you are right we don't know more than we do know. That doesn't give the God hypothesis any credibility


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that being lucky meets the same criteria as being miraculous don't you think?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love Queen! Big fan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freddy was gay you know. I'm sure you liking him comforts him in hell for all eternity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know.
> I found it interesting that he belonged to the Zoroastrianism religion.
> Do you know there is a Zoroastrianism dating society.....and they believe in leaving the bodies of their dead for the vultures....to turn them back into nature?
> 
> 
> I have idea where he wound up.
> Nor why you'd wish that on him.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't wish it on him nor do I believe he's in hell. I was mocking people who believe he's in hell because he was gay and now to boot he wasn't a Christian? Oh he's roasting for sure.
> 
> And that dude earlier asked me what's the harm in jesus' message.
> 
> Well if Jesus didn't say gays and non Christians are going to hell, why do so many Christians believe it?
> 
> Don't get mad at us your religion stinks.
> 
> And I don't tell people in person their God isn't real. That would be rude. That's what the Internet's for.
> 
> If Isaak Newton only had the internet or met an atheist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you could find any of my posts stating any of those things you'er pretending I've said.
Click to expand...

I didn't say YOU said anything. There's more than just you and I on here.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
Click to expand...

I base that belief on science. You base your belief on ignorance. You can't see any other life so you assume you are special.

From what we can see, you're probably not.

Notice I use words like probably? Does your religion admit it doesn't know for sure? Hell no. It took 7 days. Your religion has answers for everything, even if they aren't good ones


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love Queen! Big fan!
> 
> 
> 
> Freddy was gay you know. I'm sure you liking him comforts him in hell for all eternity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I know.
> I found it interesting that he belonged to the Zoroastrianism religion.
> Do you know there is a Zoroastrianism dating society.....and they believe in leaving the bodies of their dead for the vultures....to turn them back into nature?
> 
> 
> I have idea where he wound up.
> Nor why you'd wish that on him.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't wish it on him nor do I believe he's in hell. I was mocking people who believe he's in hell because he was gay and now to boot he wasn't a Christian? Oh he's roasting for sure.
> 
> And that dude earlier asked me what's the harm in jesus' message.
> 
> Well if Jesus didn't say gays and non Christians are going to hell, why do so many Christians believe it?
> 
> Don't get mad at us your religion stinks.
> 
> And I don't tell people in person their God isn't real. That would be rude. That's what the Internet's for.
> 
> If Isaak Newton only had the internet or met an atheist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you could find any of my posts stating any of those things you'er pretending I've said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say YOU said anything. There's more than just you and I on here.
Click to expand...



But the post was addressed to whom?

Apology accepted.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
Click to expand...

Why do you think we are all alone? Is there any scientific logic behind your belief?

The idea we are alone and special came from a time we didn't have all the facts. In fact they thought we were the center of the universe.

I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning.

There's no debating what Jesus said, right?


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I base that belief on science. You base your belief on ignorance. You can't see any other life so you assume you are special.
> 
> From what we can see, you're probably not.
> 
> Notice I use words like probably? Does your religion admit it doesn't know for sure? Hell no. It took 7 days. Your religion has answers for everything, even if they aren't good ones
Click to expand...


"I base that belief on science."

Of course you don't.You base it on the same thing that other religious folk base it on....faith.

 There is no proof, evidence, or even indication.

After you say "Life in our universe is probably not rare." you should follow with 'can I get an Amen!'


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I base that belief on science. You base your belief on ignorance. You can't see any other life so you assume you are special.
> 
> From what we can see, you're probably not.
> 
> Notice I use words like probably? Does your religion admit it doesn't know for sure? Hell no. It took 7 days. Your religion has answers for everything, even if they aren't good ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I base that belief on science."
> 
> Of course you don't.You base it on the same thing that other religious folk base it on....faith.
> 
> There is no proof, evidence, or even indication.
> 
> After you say "Life in our universe is probably not rare." you should follow with 'can I get an Amen!'
Click to expand...

What do you think and why do you think that? Maybe I believe the alternative to what you believe because what you believe makes no sense...

Unless of course you believe God did it? That's why God makes people stupid. Rather than look to find other life we should give up because your ancient ancestors said God told them we are unique/special/alone.

Your God, or religion I should say, got too much wrong. Called God of the gaps.

And when we find life somewhere else you'll just move the goalposts


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think we are all alone? Is there any scientific logic behind your belief?
> 
> The idea we are alone and special came from a time we didn't have all the facts. In fact they thought we were the center of the universe.
> 
> I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning.
> 
> There's no debating what Jesus said, right?
Click to expand...



To understand your acceptance of science in place of religion requires an understanding of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason.

How blind must you be to say 'I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning' when there is not the slightest indication of what you _believe.

I certainly don't begrudge you your faith._


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think we are all alone? Is there any scientific logic behind your belief?
> 
> The idea we are alone and special came from a time we didn't have all the facts. In fact they thought we were the center of the universe.
> 
> I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning.
> 
> There's no debating what Jesus said, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To understand your acceptance of science in place of religion requires an understanding of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason.
> 
> How blind must you be to say 'I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning' when there is not the slightest indication of what you _believe.
> 
> I certainly don't begrudge you your faith._
Click to expand...

The nonsense one would expect from the Harun Yahya groupies.


----------



## Militants

I'm a atheist when Lutheran God doesn't exist ....


----------



## OZman

sealybobo said:


> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they keep telling us sealy; might be true, but at this stage it is nothing more than speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not what they keep telling us. For thousands of years "they" said we were all alone.
> 
> But what do we know? We just recently discovered a new planet in our own solar system we didn't know was there.
> 
> Like Neil degrass Tyson said, the five main elements are all around us. They are everywhere. And we now believe life once lived on Mars and Venus. In fact Mars rocks might have been what started life on earth. A meteor hit Mars and flung Mars rock into space and bacteria in those rocks is what started life here.
> 
> Point is, science sees that life is probably not that rare or uncommon. Science explains your belief that life is rare is ignorant.
> 
> But you are right we don't know more than we do know. That doesn't give the God hypothesis any credibility
Click to expand...


 Science at this stage has no evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. So to my mind we as a species are indeed special.

For a different viewpoint than Tyson.


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The condition for life are not unknowable: Energy is such a condition. Space is such a condition. Time too. Even the ability to write informations in every kind of energy, radiation and material is such a condition. Water is also such a condition. No one has only a little idea about how life could exist without water and the ability of water to transport energy and material ... And life needs also always a good balance between all extremes. We are lucky that the universe all around and within the solar system is a little boring  - or with other words: stable enough so we are able to be here. ... and so on, and so on.
Click to expand...




You left out Cannoli.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I base that belief on science. You base your belief on ignorance. You can't see any other life so you assume you are special.
> 
> From what we can see, you're probably not.
> 
> Notice I use words like probably? Does your religion admit it doesn't know for sure? Hell no. It took 7 days. Your religion has answers for everything, even if they aren't good ones
Click to expand...



"Does your religion admit it doesn't know for sure? Hell no. It took 7 days. Your religion has answers for everything, even if they aren't good ones."

So, your claim to fame is pride in ignorance???

Yet, you wrote this: "I base that belief on science. You base your belief on ignorance."


Priceless.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they keep telling us sealy; might be true, but at this stage it is nothing more than speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's not what they keep telling us. For thousands of years "they" said we were all alone.
> 
> But what do we know? We just recently discovered a new planet in our own solar system we didn't know was there.
> 
> Like Neil degrass Tyson said, the five main elements are all around us. They are everywhere. And we now believe life once lived on Mars and Venus. In fact Mars rocks might have been what started life on earth. A meteor hit Mars and flung Mars rock into space and bacteria in those rocks is what started life here.
> 
> Point is, science sees that life is probably not that rare or uncommon. Science explains your belief that life is rare is ignorant.
> 
> But you are right we don't know more than we do know. That doesn't give the God hypothesis any credibility
Click to expand...



"Like Neil degrass Tyson said, the five main elements are all around us."
(That should be "As Neil....")
(...and...I get to read Tyson's articles in the Columbia magazine....)


Bulletin: with elements available....no amount of experimentation has been able to make them come alive.
I direct you to Stanley Urey's famous experiment.


But...I commend the deep and abiding faith you have in your religion, science.

(as separate from real science, that which is based on the Scientific Method.)


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means we don't know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was a miracle...
> 
> "A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences."
> Oxford Dictionary
> 
> ...Or are you saying it doesn't meet that definition?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just because we don't know doesn't make it a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an ant walks out onto a busy 4 Lane road and makes it across is that a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it this way. Start from the beginning. You say a God kicked started the universe. OK, that seems like a confident definitive statement as if it's an unequivocal face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So certainly you have at least one bit of evidence this God exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and his/her grand works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You surviving something is no miracle. You're just the smartest animal on this one planet and still very primitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... What part of the definition I've provided doesn't this example meet?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is there a God will never go away but hopefully the lies that he visited will one day fade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you criticize my beliefs any further perhaps you should read the rest of the thread.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
Click to expand...


The possibility for life is nearly not existing - on the other side exists a nearly endless number of suns including planets. I don't know the result of a calculation "nearly no way times nearly endless many places". It's equal or greater 1 - that's all what I know.

And everyone is unique. I don't understand why millions or even billions of people in the world try to say "W_e are unimportant because ... say so." _Who for heavens sake is "..."? The golden calve?  And why are you a member of  "..." too?

God loves everyone as if this one would be the only human being in the whole universe. By the way: If a multiverse exists then every intelligent being in any of this universes takes a look in a very similiar gigantic universe. Life needs gigantic universes. And  restaurants.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think we are all alone? Is there any scientific logic behind your belief?
> 
> The idea we are alone and special came from a time we didn't have all the facts. In fact they thought we were the center of the universe.
> 
> I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning.
> 
> There's no debating what Jesus said, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To understand your acceptance of science in place of religion requires an understanding of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason.
> 
> How blind must you be to say 'I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning' when there is not the slightest indication of what you _believe.
> 
> I certainly don't begrudge you your faith._
Click to expand...


How rare is life in the universe when this is a fact?

The Top 5 Most Common Elements in the Universe

*Element* *Parts Per Million*
1 Hydrogen (H) 750,000
2 Helium (He) 240,000
3 Oxygen (O) 10,000
4 Carbon (C) 5,000
5 Neon (Ne) 1,300

Life is probably everywhere.  Just too far for you to see it.  Your ignorance doesn't justify your beliefs but it does justify mine.  Do these facts scare you or just go over your head because you aren't smart enough to grasp them?

Could Ancient Mars Have Supported Life? Water Isn't the Only Key

Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, said biochemist Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology
	
 in Florida.

An oxidized form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, was likely available on the Red Planet's surface long ago, but unavailable on Earth

- See more at: Earth Life Likely Came from Mars, Study Suggests

There is so much information that PROVES you are wrong.  We don't claim to have all the answers.  Not like you.  So I do worship science and have faith in it because every cure we have has come from it.  It's not perfect but it's better than religion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think we are all alone? Is there any scientific logic behind your belief?
> 
> The idea we are alone and special came from a time we didn't have all the facts. In fact they thought we were the center of the universe.
> 
> I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning.
> 
> There's no debating what Jesus said, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To understand your acceptance of science in place of religion requires an understanding of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason.
> 
> How blind must you be to say 'I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning' when there is not the slightest indication of what you _believe.
> 
> I certainly don't begrudge you your faith._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How rare is life in the universe when this is a fact?
> 
> The Top 5 Most Common Elements in the Universe
> 
> *Element* *Parts Per Million*
> 1 Hydrogen (H) 750,000
> 2 Helium (He) 240,000
> 3 Oxygen (O) 10,000
> 4 Carbon (C) 5,000
> 5 Neon (Ne) 1,300
> 
> Life is probably everywhere.  Just too far for you to see it.  Your ignorance doesn't justify your beliefs but it does justify mine.  Do these facts scare you or just go over your head because you aren't smart enough to grasp them?
> 
> Could Ancient Mars Have Supported Life? Water Isn't the Only Key
> 
> Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, said biochemist Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology
> 
> in Florida.
> 
> An oxidized form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, was likely available on the Red Planet's surface long ago, but unavailable on Earth
> 
> - See more at: Earth Life Likely Came from Mars, Study Suggests
> 
> There is so much information that PROVES you are wrong.  We don't claim to have all the answers.  Not like you.  So I do worship science and have faith in it because every cure we have has come from it.  It's not perfect but it's better than religion.
Click to expand...



A pretty silly post, considering that I answered it already....

"Bulletin: with elements available....no amount of experimentation has been able to make them come alive."
I direct you to Stanley Urey's famous experiment.


More to the point: most especially with the 'raw materials' available, why have none of the vast number of attempts been able to accomplish 'life'?
Maybe life is a miracle.


And....I've been thinking about documenting the accuracy of the Genesis version...and would be happy to do so....but it is longer than I'd put in one post.
So...if you are interested in same, issue a challenge to Genesis that I can use in an OP: post that challenge, and I'll cobble together a thread answering it.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think we are all alone? Is there any scientific logic behind your belief?
> 
> The idea we are alone and special came from a time we didn't have all the facts. In fact they thought we were the center of the universe.
> 
> I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning.
> 
> There's no debating what Jesus said, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To understand your acceptance of science in place of religion requires an understanding of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason.
> 
> How blind must you be to say 'I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning' when there is not the slightest indication of what you _believe.
> 
> I certainly don't begrudge you your faith._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How rare is life in the universe when this is a fact?
> 
> The Top 5 Most Common Elements in the Universe
> 
> *Element* *Parts Per Million*
> 1 Hydrogen (H) 750,000
> 2 Helium (He) 240,000
> 3 Oxygen (O) 10,000
> 4 Carbon (C) 5,000
> 5 Neon (Ne) 1,300
> 
> Life is probably everywhere.  Just too far for you to see it.  Your ignorance doesn't justify your beliefs but it does justify mine.  Do these facts scare you or just go over your head because you aren't smart enough to grasp them?
> 
> Could Ancient Mars Have Supported Life? Water Isn't the Only Key
> 
> Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, said biochemist Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology
> 
> in Florida.
> 
> An oxidized form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, was likely available on the Red Planet's surface long ago, but unavailable on Earth
> 
> - See more at: Earth Life Likely Came from Mars, Study Suggests
> 
> There is so much information that PROVES you are wrong.  We don't claim to have all the answers.  Not like you.  So I do worship science and have faith in it because every cure we have has come from it.  It's not perfect but it's better than religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A pretty silly post, considering that I answered it already....
> 
> "Bulletin: with elements available....no amount of experimentation has been able to make them come alive."
> I direct you to Stanley Urey's famous experiment.
> 
> 
> More to the point: most especially with the 'raw materials' available, why have none of the vast number of attempts been able to accomplish 'life'?
> Maybe life is a miracle.
> 
> 
> And....I've been thinking about documenting the accuracy of the Genesis version...and would be happy to do so....but it is longer than I'd put in one post.
> So...if you are interested in same, issue a challenge to Genesis that I can use in an OP: post that challenge, and I'll cobble together a thread answering it.
Click to expand...

They started life in a lab! Have you seen the cosmos?

Now wait 1 million years and see that bacteria become a single cell then multi cell then fish then monkey then you


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think we are all alone? Is there any scientific logic behind your belief?
> 
> The idea we are alone and special came from a time we didn't have all the facts. In fact they thought we were the center of the universe.
> 
> I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning.
> 
> There's no debating what Jesus said, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To understand your acceptance of science in place of religion requires an understanding of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason.
> 
> How blind must you be to say 'I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning' when there is not the slightest indication of what you _believe.
> 
> I certainly don't begrudge you your faith._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How rare is life in the universe when this is a fact?
> 
> The Top 5 Most Common Elements in the Universe
> 
> *Element* *Parts Per Million*
> 1 Hydrogen (H) 750,000
> 2 Helium (He) 240,000
> 3 Oxygen (O) 10,000
> 4 Carbon (C) 5,000
> 5 Neon (Ne) 1,300
> 
> Life is probably everywhere.  Just too far for you to see it.  Your ignorance doesn't justify your beliefs but it does justify mine.  Do these facts scare you or just go over your head because you aren't smart enough to grasp them?
> 
> Could Ancient Mars Have Supported Life? Water Isn't the Only Key
> 
> Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, said biochemist Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology
> 
> in Florida.
> 
> An oxidized form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, was likely available on the Red Planet's surface long ago, but unavailable on Earth
> 
> - See more at: Earth Life Likely Came from Mars, Study Suggests
> 
> There is so much information that PROVES you are wrong.  We don't claim to have all the answers.  Not like you.  So I do worship science and have faith in it because every cure we have has come from it.  It's not perfect but it's better than religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A pretty silly post, considering that I answered it already....
> 
> "Bulletin: with elements available....no amount of experimentation has been able to make them come alive."
> I direct you to Stanley Urey's famous experiment.
> 
> 
> More to the point: most especially with the 'raw materials' available, why have none of the vast number of attempts been able to accomplish 'life'?
> Maybe life is a miracle.
> 
> 
> And....I've been thinking about documenting the accuracy of the Genesis version...and would be happy to do so....but it is longer than I'd put in one post.
> So...if you are interested in same, issue a challenge to Genesis that I can use in an OP: post that challenge, and I'll cobble together a thread answering it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They started life in a lab! Have you seen the cosmos?
> 
> Now wait 1 million years and see that bacteria become a single cell then multi cell then fish then monkey then you
Click to expand...




Clearly my post...that there has never been a successful experiment to produce life...skewered you.


And...Genesis, in the outline of the course of existence on the planet...conforms with current scientific belief.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think we are all alone? Is there any scientific logic behind your belief?
> 
> The idea we are alone and special came from a time we didn't have all the facts. In fact they thought we were the center of the universe.
> 
> I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning.
> 
> There's no debating what Jesus said, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To understand your acceptance of science in place of religion requires an understanding of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason.
> 
> How blind must you be to say 'I tend to believe science because it's basing it's beliefs on facts, logic, reasoning' when there is not the slightest indication of what you _believe.
> 
> I certainly don't begrudge you your faith._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How rare is life in the universe when this is a fact?
> 
> The Top 5 Most Common Elements in the Universe
> 
> *Element* *Parts Per Million*
> 1 Hydrogen (H) 750,000
> 2 Helium (He) 240,000
> 3 Oxygen (O) 10,000
> 4 Carbon (C) 5,000
> 5 Neon (Ne) 1,300
> 
> Life is probably everywhere.  Just too far for you to see it.  Your ignorance doesn't justify your beliefs but it does justify mine.  Do these facts scare you or just go over your head because you aren't smart enough to grasp them?
> 
> Could Ancient Mars Have Supported Life? Water Isn't the Only Key
> 
> Evidence is building that Earth life originated on Mars and was brought to this planet aboard a meteorite, said biochemist Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology
> 
> in Florida.
> 
> An oxidized form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, was likely available on the Red Planet's surface long ago, but unavailable on Earth
> 
> - See more at: Earth Life Likely Came from Mars, Study Suggests
> 
> There is so much information that PROVES you are wrong.  We don't claim to have all the answers.  Not like you.  So I do worship science and have faith in it because every cure we have has come from it.  It's not perfect but it's better than religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A pretty silly post, considering that I answered it already....
> 
> "Bulletin: with elements available....no amount of experimentation has been able to make them come alive."
> I direct you to Stanley Urey's famous experiment.
> 
> 
> More to the point: most especially with the 'raw materials' available, why have none of the vast number of attempts been able to accomplish 'life'?
> Maybe life is a miracle.
> 
> 
> And....I've been thinking about documenting the accuracy of the Genesis version...and would be happy to do so....but it is longer than I'd put in one post.
> So...if you are interested in same, issue a challenge to Genesis that I can use in an OP: post that challenge, and I'll cobble together a thread answering it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They started life in a lab! Have you seen the cosmos?
> 
> Now wait 1 million years and see that bacteria become a single cell then multi cell then fish then monkey then you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly my post...that there has never been a successful experiment to produce life...skewered you.
> 
> 
> And...Genesis, in the outline of the course of existence on the planet...conforms with current scientific belief.
Click to expand...

Of course it does, dear. Current scientific belief conforms to a 6,000 year old earth. 

Another graduate of the Harun Yahya madrassah.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No drinking or smoking the funny sticks.  Aren't atheists the champions of logic?
> 
> The assumption is an universe without God,  If no God, then no atheists.  (I suppose one can say If no belief in God, then no non-belief in His existence.)  Can we agree on that?
> 
> I'm just trying to point out we cannot have a condition where atheists and no God or where God and no atheists exist.
> 
> So, logically is it possible to come up with yes atheist and no God?
> 
> 
> 
> If no god, then atheists are right. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says there is no end of the story.  See.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
Click to expand...


Yes, you got it with your second to the last sentence.

God says there is no end to the story in the Bible because of the afterlife.  How do we know it exists and what is it?  One evidence for its existence is the finding that consciousness continues on for a bit after clinical death.  The other evidence is from near death experiences.  What we will not know is what is beyond that?  One has to die to find out and then there is no return to describe what happened.

The other evidence lies with the judgment of our lives.  All religions except atheism has final judgment.  One can be evil or good and many shades of gray in-between.  Even atheists want judgment to occur, but it can only happen while alive.  Better final judgment if there is an afterlife.


----------



## the_human_being




----------



## zaangalewa

the_human_being said:


> View attachment 68389



What men thinks Darwin about? Newton and Leibniz? His mother and father? Queen Victoria and Queen Victoria?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought a miracle was a God intervention. My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, from a Harper's essay, by a physicist.
> 
> 
> 1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*
> 
> 2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
> Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.
> 
> 4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> 
> 5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*
> 
> 6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.* No life of any kind would exist."*
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> Miracle .....or coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I base that belief on science. You base your belief on ignorance. You can't see any other life so you assume you are special. From what we can see, you're probably not.
Click to expand...


A true skeptic would believe that life is highly improbable also.



sealybobo said:


> Notice I use words like probably? Does your religion admit it doesn't know for sure? Hell no. It took 7 days. Your religion has answers for everything, even if they aren't good ones



In the words of Isaac Newton earlier on in this thread...



IsaacNewton said:


> Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.



How long did the 'Laws Of The Universe' not exist right after the Big Bang?

It would appear that Christian creation theology has a lot in common with scientific creationism theology.

Didn't the Christians come up with the concept first? I do believe so!





It would appear that Christian concepts are 'good enough' for the scientific community to steal from.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe less miracle and less coincidence but more a kind of very hard fact. If I remember well then all natural constants have to be very very very exact for living structures - in one case it are about 40 digits. So even if the speculation about a Multiversum would be correct: In case we would be able to communicate with other universes then in only less than 1 of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cases we would be able to find life within a universe of this multiverse. And we do not know anything about wether life is existing in more than one case in our own universe too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I base that belief on science. You base your belief on ignorance. You can't see any other life so you assume you are special.
> 
> From what we can see, you're probably not.
> 
> Notice I use words like probably? Does your religion admit it doesn't know for sure? Hell no. It took 7 days. Your religion has answers for everything, even if they aren't good ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I base that belief on science."
> 
> Of course you don't.You base it on the same thing that other religious folk base it on....faith.
> 
> There is no proof, evidence, or even indication.
> 
> After you say "Life in our universe is probably not rare." you should follow with 'can I get an Amen!'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think and why do you think that? Maybe I believe the alternative to what you believe because what you believe makes no sense...
> 
> Unless of course you believe God did it? That's why God makes people stupid. Rather than look to find other life we should give up because your ancient ancestors said God told them we are unique/special/alone.
> 
> Your God, or religion I should say, got too much wrong. Called God of the gaps.
> 
> And when we find life somewhere else you'll just move the goalposts
Click to expand...






Science moves it's goalposts all the time.

...No one can travel faster than 50 miles an hour or the air will be sucked out of the vehicle.

...No one can travel faster than the speed of sound.

...No one will be able to travel faster than the speed of light.

Your argument is a strawman at best.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


What are newtons 3 laws? Actually, Just the one you are referring to.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life in our universe is probably not rare. What are the 5 most common elements of our universe? They exist everywhere. They exist in our sun, planet, space and in you.
> 
> So just because we are too small stupid and far to see life is all over the universe, that doesn't make us special or unique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I base that belief on science. You base your belief on ignorance. You can't see any other life so you assume you are special.
> 
> From what we can see, you're probably not.
> 
> Notice I use words like probably? Does your religion admit it doesn't know for sure? Hell no. It took 7 days. Your religion has answers for everything, even if they aren't good ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I base that belief on science."
> 
> Of course you don't.You base it on the same thing that other religious folk base it on....faith.
> 
> There is no proof, evidence, or even indication.
> 
> After you say "Life in our universe is probably not rare." you should follow with 'can I get an Amen!'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think and why do you think that? Maybe I believe the alternative to what you believe because what you believe makes no sense...
> 
> Unless of course you believe God did it? That's why God makes people stupid. Rather than look to find other life we should give up because your ancient ancestors said God told them we are unique/special/alone.
> 
> Your God, or religion I should say, got too much wrong. Called God of the gaps.
> 
> And when we find life somewhere else you'll just move the goalposts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68478
> 
> Science moves it's goalposts all the time.
> 
> ...No one can travel faster than 50 miles an hour or the air will be sucked out of the vehicle.
> 
> ...No one can travel faster than the speed of sound.
> 
> ...No one will be able to travel faster than the speed of light.
> 
> Your argument is a strawman at best.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

So where does this leave us?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are newtons 3 laws?
Click to expand...


I thought you believed in science and the scientific method... Now you're saying you don't even know what Newton's Three Laws Of Motion are?



sealybobo said:


> Actually, Just the one you are referring to.



Sigh!!!!!..... If I must provide the information then I expect some thought in return.

*********************************************************************************************

Newton's Three Laws Of Motion:

1. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

2. Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object).

3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

*********************************************************************************************

Why don't you tell me which one you think I'm most likely referring to.






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Life in our universe is probably not rare."
> 
> 
> There couldn't be a more perfect example of the faith you have in your religion, science.
> 
> 
> 
> I base that belief on science. You base your belief on ignorance. You can't see any other life so you assume you are special.
> 
> From what we can see, you're probably not.
> 
> Notice I use words like probably? Does your religion admit it doesn't know for sure? Hell no. It took 7 days. Your religion has answers for everything, even if they aren't good ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I base that belief on science."
> 
> Of course you don't.You base it on the same thing that other religious folk base it on....faith.
> 
> There is no proof, evidence, or even indication.
> 
> After you say "Life in our universe is probably not rare." you should follow with 'can I get an Amen!'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think and why do you think that? Maybe I believe the alternative to what you believe because what you believe makes no sense...
> 
> Unless of course you believe God did it? That's why God makes people stupid. Rather than look to find other life we should give up because your ancient ancestors said God told them we are unique/special/alone.
> 
> Your God, or religion I should say, got too much wrong. Called God of the gaps.
> 
> And when we find life somewhere else you'll just move the goalposts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68478
> 
> Science moves it's goalposts all the time.
> 
> ...No one can travel faster than 50 miles an hour or the air will be sucked out of the vehicle.
> 
> ...No one can travel faster than the speed of sound.
> 
> ...No one will be able to travel faster than the speed of light.
> 
> Your argument is a strawman at best.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where does this leave us?
Click to expand...







Well... In your case most likely being an uninvited guest at a tea party.....

Now the question is which way do you want to go to get there?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?




God doesn't exist. And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.



> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?


Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?


----------



## zaangalewa

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


And what's your reason why you chose this belief?



> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> 
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
Click to expand...


Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are newtons 3 laws? Actually, Just the one you are referring to.
Click to expand...


1) resistance to a change in a state of motion
2) F=m*a
3) actio est reactio
4) principle of superposition


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are newtons 3 laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you believed in science and the scientific method... Now you're saying you don't even know what Newton's Three Laws Of Motion are?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Just the one you are referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh!!!!!..... If I must provide the information then I expect some thought in return.
> 
> *********************************************************************************************
> 
> Newton's Three Laws Of Motion:
> 
> 1. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
> 
> 2. Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object).
> 
> 3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> 
> *********************************************************************************************
> 
> Why don't you tell me which one you think I'm most likely referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

I thought you were suggesting one of his laws ware "if something can't be explained it's a miracle."

You are very confusing. Not very effective proving God exists.

Now your onto newtons laws? What do they prove?


----------



## sealybobo

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist. And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
Click to expand...

The 3rd law where it says anything Newton can't explain is a miracle from God. Duh!


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
Click to expand...



Government schooling.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government schooling.
Click to expand...

The David Berlinski school for the intellectually crippled.


----------



## the_human_being




----------



## the_human_being




----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> View attachment 68513


Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.    

If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist.  The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.  

You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad.  I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.

And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept?  And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted.  You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.  

I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution.  In fact I don't think it does.  Has this been peer reviewed?  Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?  

DNA Proves Evolution

Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government schooling.
Click to expand...


I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.
Click to expand...



I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.


----------



## zaangalewa

the_human_being said:


> View attachment 68513



Maybe here's the answer you are ¿not? looking for: Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## HUGGY

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



Obviously something happened.  Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.

Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?  

It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. On the other side I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites [only]?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church: Albertus Magnus. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I had to laugh a lot because he needed two years to find out what everyone knows. But I never understood why he became angry, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god.


----------



## defcon4

HUGGY said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something happened.  *Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.*
> 
> Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?
> 
> It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.
Click to expand...

Yesterday's miracles are today's science


----------



## HUGGY

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. But I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church, who was very important in a time when the first universities started to become important. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I never understood why, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god too.
Click to expand...


You are a nit wit.  Why would it take 2 years to discover that the school forces prayer?  A confined learning environment is not the same as working for a paycheck.  Unless the employer insists that the workers are all believers what difference does it make?


----------



## zaangalewa

HUGGY said:


> ... You are a nit wit.



"nit wit" - "Schwachkopf" - got it.



> Why would it take 2 years to discover that the school forces prayer?



We don't force anyone to pray. We are just simple praying in our schools as we always did since schools are existing. If someone doesn't like to pray we'll find other ways to start the day with a meditation. Everyone knows this here - so I would say this phycicist was not communicating with his son very much.



> A confined learning environment is not the same as working for a paycheck.  Unless the employer insists that the workers are all believers what difference does it make?



Lots of people have lots of opinions about what to do with the money of other people. Hitler for example used the money of the Jews in Germany to organice the massmurder on Jews. And sometimes the most rich persons the universe and god knew died very poor.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68513
> 
> 
> 
> Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.
> 
> If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist.  The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.
> 
> You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad.  I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.
> 
> And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept?  And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted.  You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.
> 
> I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution.  In fact I don't think it does.  Has this been peer reviewed?  Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?
> 
> DNA Proves Evolution
> 
> Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.
Click to expand...


I do understand mathematics quite well though. Well enough to know that the odds for a Big Bang causing the earth to become positioned exactly where it is positioned is an improbability. The odds that he earth would just happen to contain all the ingredients necessary to support life is an added improbability. The odds that a single cell formed within some slime pool is an additional improbability. The odds that a single cell evolved into a four cell lifeform is an absolute impossibility. Put all of these improbabilities together and you have a mathematically impossible situation.


----------



## the_human_being




----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68513
> 
> 
> 
> Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.
> 
> If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist.  The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.
> 
> You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad.  I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.
> 
> And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept?  And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted.  You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.
> 
> I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution.  In fact I don't think it does.  Has this been peer reviewed?  Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?
> 
> DNA Proves Evolution
> 
> Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand mathematics quite well though. Well enough to know that the odds for a Big Bang causing the earth to become positioned exactly where it is positioned is an improbability. The odds that he earth would just happen to contain all the ingredients necessary to support life is an added improbability. The odds that a single cell formed within some slime pool is an additional improbability. The odds that a single cell evolved into a four cell lifeform is an absolute impossibility. Put all of these improbabilities together and you have a mathematically impossible situation.
Click to expand...

That is such utter ignorant nonsense I don't even know where to begin.  The fucking big bang blew up and flung stars all over the universe and they died and exploded and rock flew out all over the universe and gravity pulled those rocks into or around each sun/star and eventually one of those rocks became a planet that could harbor life.  Mars might be too close to the sun and venus might be too far away or pluto or jupiter.  The point is, over billions of years eventually Mars might have been in the sweet spot and then eventually us.  You don't know.  

This process probably happens around every star.  The closest star to us might not have any life in its solar system now but maybe it did 5 billion years ago.  Or maybe it will 5 billion years from now.

No, you don't understand math very well.  You understand it like a monkey understands sign language.  You think you are smart but really humans are not that intelligent.  ESPECIALLY the ones who argue with science.  

Even if the big bang and the earth were a million to one, we are that 1.  No miracle.  

The earth didn't always have the ingredients for life.  

Listen, there are so many holes in your argument I don't even know where to begin.


Watch this.  12 minutes.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68513
> 
> 
> 
> Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.
> 
> If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist.  The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.
> 
> You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad.  I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.
> 
> And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept?  And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted.  You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.
> 
> I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution.  In fact I don't think it does.  Has this been peer reviewed?  Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?
> 
> DNA Proves Evolution
> 
> Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand mathematics quite well though. Well enough to know that the odds for a Big Bang causing the earth to become positioned exactly where it is positioned is an improbability. The odds that he earth would just happen to contain all the ingredients necessary to support life is an added improbability. The odds that a single cell formed within some slime pool is an additional improbability. The odds that a single cell evolved into a four cell lifeform is an absolute impossibility. Put all of these improbabilities together and you have a mathematically impossible situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is such utter ignorant nonsense I don't even know where to begin.  The fucking big bang blew up and flung stars all over the universe and they died and exploded and rock flew out all over the universe and gravity pulled those rocks into or around each sun/star and eventually one of those rocks became a planet that could harbor life.  Mars might be too close to the sun and venus might be too far away or pluto or jupiter.  The point is, over billions of years eventually Mars might have been in the sweet spot and then eventually us.  You don't know.
> 
> This process probably happens around every star.  The closest star to us might not have any life in its solar system now but maybe it did 5 billion years ago.  Or maybe it will 5 billion years from now.
> 
> No, you don't understand math very well.  You understand it like a monkey understands sign language.  You think you are smart but really humans are not that intelligent.  ESPECIALLY the ones who argue with science.
> 
> Even if the big bang and the earth were a million to one, we are that 1.  No miracle.
> 
> The earth didn't always have the ingredients for life.
> 
> Listen, there are so many holes in your argument I don't even know where to begin.
> 
> 
> Watch this.  12 minutes.
Click to expand...


The reason you don't know where to begin is simply because you have no argument of merit. Do a search on the mathematical impossibility for evolution and you will get about 100 or so hits. Science is not set in stone my Friend. What was considered science fifty years ago is not necessarily the science accepted today. Mathematics on the other hand, is set in stone. Mathematics never changes.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68513
> 
> 
> 
> Science I'm sure would refute your creation science argument.
> 
> If you want to know the answer to your question you'll have to ask a scientist.  The problem with that is you won't believe a word they say.
> 
> You would have to show this to a scientist so they can explain to us why your argument is bad.  I'm not smart enough to know the answer and neither are you.
> 
> And it is funny you reject evidence that proves evolution but this "evidence" you've just submitted you accept?  And lets be honest, you don't understand the picture you just posted.  You aren't smart enough to answer your own question.
> 
> I don't understand why the complexity of one cell debunks evolution.  In fact I don't think it does.  Has this been peer reviewed?  Care to show us the groups conclusion to this?
> 
> DNA Proves Evolution
> 
> Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand mathematics quite well though. Well enough to know that the odds for a Big Bang causing the earth to become positioned exactly where it is positioned is an improbability. The odds that he earth would just happen to contain all the ingredients necessary to support life is an added improbability. The odds that a single cell formed within some slime pool is an additional improbability. The odds that a single cell evolved into a four cell lifeform is an absolute impossibility. Put all of these improbabilities together and you have a mathematically impossible situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is such utter ignorant nonsense I don't even know where to begin.  The fucking big bang blew up and flung stars all over the universe and they died and exploded and rock flew out all over the universe and gravity pulled those rocks into or around each sun/star and eventually one of those rocks became a planet that could harbor life.  Mars might be too close to the sun and venus might be too far away or pluto or jupiter.  The point is, over billions of years eventually Mars might have been in the sweet spot and then eventually us.  You don't know.
> 
> This process probably happens around every star.  The closest star to us might not have any life in its solar system now but maybe it did 5 billion years ago.  Or maybe it will 5 billion years from now.
> 
> No, you don't understand math very well.  You understand it like a monkey understands sign language.  You think you are smart but really humans are not that intelligent.  ESPECIALLY the ones who argue with science.
> 
> Even if the big bang and the earth were a million to one, we are that 1.  No miracle.
> 
> The earth didn't always have the ingredients for life.
> 
> Listen, there are so many holes in your argument I don't even know where to begin.
> 
> 
> Watch this.  12 minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason you don't know where to begin is simply because you have no argument of merit. Do a search on the mathematical impossibility for evolution and you will get about 100 or so hits. Science is not set in stone my Friend. What was considered science fifty years ago is not necessarily the science accepted today. Mathematics on the other hand, is set in stone. Mathematics never changes.
Click to expand...

I suppose you think math proves God?


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you are programmed to assume God is real it's hard to even consider it's not.
> 
> And OK so what maybe there is a creator. Is that all? Or are they gonna now say he visited their ancestors thousands of years ago and brought a message.
> 
> This is how primitive we still are.
> 
> This morning the professor on Gilligans island said it best. The more primitive the tribe the more superstitious. Yes the professor was a scientist and atheist.
Click to expand...


What do you mean is that all?  And he brought a message?  You act like this all happened in the past.  It's still happening now.

Maybe you are right.  Some humans are still primitive who do not see God and His work..


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you are programmed to assume God is real it's hard to even consider it's not.
> 
> And OK so what maybe there is a creator. Is that all? Or are they gonna now say he visited their ancestors thousands of years ago and brought a message.
> 
> This is how primitive we still are.
> 
> This morning the professor on Gilligans island said it best. The more primitive the tribe the more superstitious. Yes the professor was a scientist and atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean is that all?  And he brought a message?  You act like this all happened in the past.  It's still happening now.
> 
> Maybe you are right.  Some humans are still primitive who do not see God and His work..
Click to expand...

What is still happening now and who brought a message?


----------



## james bond

Mudda said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got any proof of god saying anything or is this just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
Click to expand...


It's logical proof or rationalism.  

Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.

It's not I that do not have a clue.  You'll understand one day.  

To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's logical proof or rationalism.
> 
> Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.
> 
> It's not I that do not have a clue.  You'll understand one day.
> 
> To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.
Click to expand...

If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.

You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist. And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
Click to expand...







If science doesn't hold the answer to all questions then how do you know God doesn't exist?

As for your question... I'm waiting on a response from some all knowledgeable scientific minded atheist to provide me with an input on that prior to providing a response of my own.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are newtons 3 laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you believed in science and the scientific method... Now you're saying you don't even know what Newton's Three Laws Of Motion are?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Just the one you are referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh!!!!!..... If I must provide the information then I expect some thought in return.
> 
> *********************************************************************************************
> 
> Newton's Three Laws Of Motion:
> 
> 1. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
> 
> 2. Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object).
> 
> 3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> 
> *********************************************************************************************
> 
> Why don't you tell me which one you think I'm most likely referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you were suggesting one of his laws ware "if something can't be explained it's a miracle."
Click to expand...


I said no such thing.



sealybobo said:


> You are very confusing. Not very effective proving God exists.



Perhaps a reading comprehension course might help you.



sealybobo said:


> Now your onto newtons laws? What do they prove?



Aren't you the scientific minded atheist who disbelieves miracles occur?

What kick started the Big Bang?






I'm still going with a miracle occurred and that's why everything exists including us.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

HUGGY said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something happened.  Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.
> 
> Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?
> 
> It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.
Click to expand...







I don't see anything here to give your 'belief' any more validation than mine.

Where's your evidence and proof?

All I see here is another scientific creation theology, with no evidence or proof to confirm it deserves merit, conceived by man (or woman) to comfort the minds of the unknowing and unknowledgeable.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

defcon4 said:


> Yesterday's miracles are today's science








Thy words fall upon deaf ears.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****


----------



## defcon4

Damaged Eagle said:


> Thy words fall upon deaf ears.


It always happens. The question about God's existence should not be the subject of dispute. 
God exist to those who believe in a Creator as a Supreme Being and God doesn't exist for those who believe that they do not believe, what actually is a belief what acknowledges God in a negative sense.


----------



## HUGGY

defcon4 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thy words fall upon deaf ears.
> 
> 
> 
> It always happens. The question about God's existence should not be the subject of dispute.
> God exist to those who believe in a Creator as a Supreme Being and God doesn't exist for those who believe that they do not believe, what actually is a belief what acknowledges God in a negative sense.
Click to expand...


Double talk.  Nonsense.  

No creator means just that.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

HUGGY said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thy words fall upon deaf ears.
> 
> 
> 
> It always happens. The question about God's existence should not be the subject of dispute.
> God exist to those who believe in a Creator as a Supreme Being and God doesn't exist for those who believe that they do not believe, what actually is a belief what acknowledges God in a negative sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Double talk.  Nonsense.
> 
> No creator means just that.
Click to expand...






I observe the creator and his/her wonderful works every day.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## defcon4

Damaged Eagle said:


> I observe the creator and *his/her* wonderful works every day.


Androgynous.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist. And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If science doesn't hold the answer to all questions then how do you know God doesn't exist?
> 
> As for your question... I'm waiting on a response from some all knowledgeable scientific minded atheist to provide me with an input on that prior to providing a response of my own.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

I got it! If God doesn't exist you will still wake up today, still go to sleep tonight, still either be a good or bad person, you will still die one day.

In other words God has no impact on anything. Other than in your head of course.

Now try posting without putting up a music video that no one is watching


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thy words fall upon deaf ears.
> 
> 
> 
> It always happens. The question about God's existence should not be the subject of dispute.
> God exist to those who believe in a Creator as a Supreme Being and God doesn't exist for those who believe that they do not believe, what actually is a belief what acknowledges God in a negative sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Double talk.  Nonsense.
> 
> No creator means just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I observe the creator and his/her wonderful works every day.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Stop posting stupid videos. No ones clicking on them.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something happened.  Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.
> 
> Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?
> 
> It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything here to give your 'belief' any more validation than mine.
> 
> Where's your evidence and proof?
> 
> All I see here is another scientific creation theology, with no evidence or proof to confirm it deserves merit, conceived by man (or woman) to comfort the minds of the unknowing and unknowledgeable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

So your belief is based on what you don't know. Ignorance


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

How powerful can God be
That must be some powerful Christian God that his believers are intimidated by Yoga...Yoga scary
LOL



*Christian parents freak out over yoga exercises at Georgia school: ‘This is very scary’*


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ... That is such utter ignorant nonsense I don't even know where to begin.  The fucking big bang blew up ...



Why? ... Would you call this for example a senseful event or a senseless event? ... Or let me ask a more concrete "why" ... Why was something in the big bang what you are now? Are you fascinated from your "I am"?


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thy words fall upon deaf ears.
> 
> 
> 
> It always happens. The question about God's existence should not be the subject of dispute.
> God exist to those who believe in a Creator as a Supreme Being and God doesn't exist for those who believe that they do not believe, what actually is a belief what acknowledges God in a negative sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Double talk.  Nonsense.
> 
> No creator means just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I observe the creator and his/her wonderful works every day.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Amun Ra. The creator of all.

******CHUCKLE*****


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... That is such utter ignorant nonsense I don't even know where to begin.  The fucking big bang blew up ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? ... Would you call this for example a senseful event or a senseless event? ... Or let me ask a more concrete "why" ... Why was something in the big bang what you are now?
Click to expand...

I won't answer any questions from people who put up random stupid videos in every reply.

Are you incapable or unwilling to stop?

And why? What does Lord of the rings or Aragorn's sleeping have to do with what we are talking about


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ... The fact is we don't know. ...



You don't know god is not existing?


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The fact is we don't know. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know god is not existing?
Click to expand...

So unwilling it is. Every time you post a video to me I say fuck your God in the ass. So by posting a video you are asking me to say fuck your God in the ass.

Go ahead, post another video. I know you like hearing fuck your God in the ass


----------



## zaangalewa

Damaged Eagle said:


> ... Thy words fall upon deaf ears. ...



Deaf eyes in this case, isn't it?


----------



## HUGGY

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something happened.  Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.
> 
> Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?
> 
> It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything here to give your 'belief' any more validation than mine.
> 
> Where's your evidence and proof?
> 
> All I see here is another scientific creation theology, with no evidence or proof to confirm it deserves merit, conceived by man (or woman) to comfort the minds of the unknowing and unknowledgeable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Of course you don't see any difference.  You filter your the information regarding how the universe came to be through your concept and understanding of the bible.  That process varies from denial to just pure faith....meaning that which you do not understand you take the scripture's viewpoint even if it does not make any scientific sense.  The more a scientific argument centers on basic ideas such as the Big Bang the more apt you are to defer to a biblical passage or "witness". 

It is unlikely you are capable of thinking freely about matters such as "how the universe came into being" without comparing these ideas to and deferring to the bible references.

Religists are to me similar any group of people that have acquired a strong prejudice which makes it impossible to think openly about some subjects.

For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over.

The same thing happens when the basic fundamentals of christianity are challenged. 

The human brain is only capable of just so much anyway.  Trying to visualize the big bang even without poisoning the concept with made up images of some humanoid creature lurking nearby orchestrating the whole event is just too much silliness mixed in with a cold scientific visualization.

If someone has invested a substantial portion of their life sincerely believing that there is an actual god that has created everything the shock associated with finding out that there actually is no such being would be too much and drive many christians over the edge to mental breakdowns.

In short ..you do not want to know that there is no god and there never was a god.  Your mind will not allow that idea to sink in no matter how much proof I were to provide.


----------



## zaangalewa

HUGGY said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thy words fall upon deaf ears.
> 
> 
> 
> It always happens. The question about God's existence should not be the subject of dispute.
> God exist to those who believe in a Creator as a Supreme Being and God doesn't exist for those who believe that they do not believe, what actually is a belief what acknowledges God in a negative sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Double talk.  Nonsense.
> 
> No creator means just that.
Click to expand...


Why not? What about if some people are real and others are only tattoos tattooed on their tattoos - or thoughts thought from their thoughts?


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something happened.  Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.
> 
> Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?
> 
> It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything here to give your 'belief' any more validation than mine.
> 
> Where's your evidence and proof?
> 
> All I see here is another scientific creation theology, with no evidence or proof to confirm it deserves merit, conceived by man (or woman) to comfort the minds of the unknowing and unknowledgeable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't see any difference.  You filter your the information regarding how the universe came to be through your concept and understanding of the bible.  That process  any scientific sense.varies from denial to just pure faith....meaning that which you do not understand you take the scripture's viewpoint even if it does not make any scientific sense.  The more a scientific argument centers on basic ideas such as the Big Bang the more apt you are to defer to a biblical passage or "witness".
> 
> It is unlikely you are capable of thinking freely about matters such as "how the universe came into being" without comparing these ideas to and deferring to the bible references.
> 
> Religists are to me similar any group of people that have acquired a strong prejudice which makes it impossible to think openly about some subjects.
> 
> For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over.
> 
> The same thing happens when the basic fundamentals of christianity are challenged.
> 
> The human brain is only capable of just so much anyway.  Trying to visualize the big bang even without poisoning the concept with made up images of some humanoid creature lurking nearby orchestrating the whole event is just too much silliness mixed in with a cold scientific visualization.
> 
> If someone has invested a substantial portion of their life sincerely believing that there is an actual god that has created everything the shock associated with finding out that there actually is no such being would be too much and drive many christians over the edge to mental breakdowns.
> 
> In short ..you do not want to know that there is no god and there never was a god.  Your mind will not allow that idea to sink in no matter how much proof I were to provide.
Click to expand...

I remember for a couple days after deciding for good that there is no God I was a little uncomfortable and felt a little guilty and sad.

If there was a God and he wanted me to believe he would have given me a sign. He didn't. He did what he always does. Absolutely nothing.


----------



## HUGGY

zaangalewa said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thy words fall upon deaf ears.
> 
> 
> 
> It always happens. The question about God's existence should not be the subject of dispute.
> God exist to those who believe in a Creator as a Supreme Being and God doesn't exist for those who believe that they do not believe, what actually is a belief what acknowledges God in a negative sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Double talk.  Nonsense.
> 
> No creator means just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? What about if some people are real and others are only tattoos tattooed on their tattoos - or thoughts thought from their thoughts?
Click to expand...


More silliness.  What do you imagine the world, our planet, would be like if there were no human beings?  Would your god be wasted on chimpanzees or dinosaurs?


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something happened.  Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.
> 
> Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?
> 
> It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything here to give your 'belief' any more validation than mine.
> 
> Where's your evidence and proof?
> 
> All I see here is another scientific creation theology, with no evidence or proof to confirm it deserves merit, conceived by man (or woman) to comfort the minds of the unknowing and unknowledgeable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't see any difference.  You filter your the information regarding how the universe came to be through your concept and understanding of the bible.  That process  any scientific sense.varies from denial to just pure faith....meaning that which you do not understand you take the scripture's viewpoint even if it does not make any scientific sense.  The more a scientific argument centers on basic ideas such as the Big Bang the more apt you are to defer to a biblical passage or "witness".
> 
> It is unlikely you are capable of thinking freely about matters such as "how the universe came into being" without comparing these ideas to and deferring to the bible references.
> 
> Religists are to me similar any group of people that have acquired a strong prejudice which makes it impossible to think openly about some subjects.
> 
> For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over.
> 
> The same thing happens when the basic fundamentals of christianity are challenged.
> 
> The human brain is only capable of just so much anyway.  Trying to visualize the big bang even without poisoning the concept with made up images of some humanoid creature lurking nearby orchestrating the whole event is just too much silliness mixed in with a cold scientific visualization.
> 
> If someone has invested a substantial portion of their life sincerely believing that there is an actual god that has created everything the shock associated with finding out that there actually is no such being would be too much and drive many christians over the edge to mental breakdowns.
> 
> In short ..you do not want to know that there is no god and there never was a god.  Your mind will not allow that idea to sink in no matter how much proof I were to provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember for a couple days after deciding for good that there is no God I was a little uncomfortable and felt a little guilty and sad.
> 
> If there was a God and he wanted me to believe he would have given me a sign. He didn't. He did what he always does. Absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...


Imagine the shock to someone who absolutely believed word for word in the bible and did so for an entire lifetime.  The sadness and sense of abandon would be completely overwhelming.


----------



## zaangalewa

defcon4 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I observe the creator and *his/her* wonderful works every day.
> 
> 
> 
> Androgynous.
Click to expand...


God is our mother. God is our father. God is not our androgynous. Every human being is his child - also androgyn human beings. To be a child of god is completly independent from anythgin else than his love. I would say the best form to use is "he" and "father" - because a mother bears her children and we don't see god bear children. So it's more easy to use the word "father" but we could also say "mother " to him.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The fact is we don't know. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know god is not existing?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So unwilling it is. Every time you post a video to me I say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> So by posting a video you are asking me to say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> Go ahead, post another video. I know you like hearing fuck your God in the ass
Click to expand...


What about íf I would be an ET with a big red button? Or more worse: I could be an ancient germanic warrior with a tomahawk drone. So what about an answer? Do you say normally "There is no god" or do you say normally "I don't believe in [the existance of] god".


----------



## there4eyeM

There is no way to "know 'God'" other than by unique, personal, intimate knowledge. And that is indistinguishable from hallucination.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thy words fall upon deaf ears.
> 
> 
> 
> It always happens. The question about God's existence should not be the subject of dispute.
> God exist to those who believe in a Creator as a Supreme Being and God doesn't exist for those who believe that they do not believe, what actually is a belief what acknowledges God in a negative sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Double talk.  Nonsense.
> 
> No creator means just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I observe the creator and his/her wonderful works every day.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop posting stupid videos. No ones clicking on them.
Click to expand...


Your allknowing gene is definetelly defect. Why not to slow down a little? When god made time he made a lot - minimum a universe full of time.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... That is such utter ignorant nonsense I don't even know where to begin.  The fucking big bang blew up ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? ... Would you call this for example a senseful event or a senseless event? ... Or let me ask a more concrete "why" ... Why was something in the big bang what you are now?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't answer any questions from people who put up random stupid videos in every reply.
> 
> Are you incapable or unwilling to stop?
> 
> And why? What does Lord of the rings or Aragorn's sleeping have to do with what we are talking about
Click to expand...


So you don't answer my questions here because you don't find a way to understand what Aragorns sleeping song could have to do with the birth of the universe.


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. On the other side I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites [only]?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church: Albertus Magnus. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I had to laugh a lot because he needed two years to find out what everyone knows. But I never understood why he became angry, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god.
Click to expand...



Pleeeezzzze.....stop the "elites" nonsense.



Factors to consider at the Church-state intersection:
Many families favored the safety, discipline, and attention to character development in addition to academics, but would have to continue paying public school property taxes in addition to tuition.
Teacher unions opposed any aid to schools that were not unionized.
Urban parochial schools were serving a growing share of disadvantaged and frequently non-Catholic youngsters. In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation found that, of the Catholic school students in these Catholic high schools in New York City, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic.

  i.  Over 66 percentof the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

  ii.  The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class; 

  iii.  The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642;

  iv.  60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.

  « More recent studies confirm these observations. Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-CityChildren


"Classes in Catholic parochial schools tended to be larger than in private schools in general. More than 62 percent of the Catholic parochial schools had an average class size of 25 or more, a substantially higher proportion than private schools overall (36 percent)."
Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94 / Catholic-Parochial Schools



"Catholic schools are attractive to non-Catholics for several reasons, parents and Catholic educators say. They offer the close supervision and small classes of private schools at a fraction of the cost - often as little as $1,000 a year. Most important, along with academics, many parents say, is that Catholic schools provide discipline and instruct students in morals and values through their religious teaching."  More Non-Catholic Students Trying Catholic Schools


And....my fav, home schooling.


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point is it's EITHER God and atheists or no God and no atheists.  We know the latter is not the case in our universe.  So it leaves God or the belief in God is wrong or the atheists are wrong.  Only one can be right.  Can we agree on that?
> 
> There are arguments for God that I can present if you want, but the above is what I thought from the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's logical proof or rationalism.
> 
> Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.
> 
> It's not I that do not have a clue.  You'll understand one day.
> 
> To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.
Click to expand...

So basically, you have nothing to back up all that malarkey. Got it.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ... For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over. ...



Is this the same íf someone uses the word "negroe"?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something happened.  Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.
> 
> Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?
> 
> It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything here to give your 'belief' any more validation than mine.
> 
> Where's your evidence and proof?
> 
> All I see here is another scientific creation theology, with no evidence or proof to confirm it deserves merit, conceived by man (or woman) to comfort the minds of the unknowing and unknowledgeable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...




Excellent.

There is prominent scientific atheist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of thepublic understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma inpop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void?



They have faith in total nonsense, such as Krauss' 'A Universe From Nothing"

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._"out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."



And....again, your request: "Where's your evidence and proof?

All I see here is another scientific creation theology, "




The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.


----------



## zaangalewa

HUGGY said:


> ... In short ... you do not want to know that there is no god and there never was a god. ...



How do you know this?


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... In short ... you do not want to know that there is no god and there never was a god. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this?
Click to expand...

Because you're a moron who's still hung up on the holocaust.


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. On the other side I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites [only]?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church: Albertus Magnus. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I had to laugh a lot because he needed two years to find out what everyone knows. But I never understood why he became angry, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pleeeezzzze.....stop the "elites" nonsense.
> 
> 
> Factors to consider at the Church-state intersection:
> Many families favored the safety, discipline, and attention to character development in addition to academics, but would have to continue paying public school property taxes in addition to tuition.
> Teacher unions opposed any aid to schools that were not unionized.
> Urban parochial schools were serving a growing share of disadvantaged and frequently non-Catholic youngsters. In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation found that, of the Catholic school students in these Catholic high schools in New York City, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic.
> 
> i.  Over 66 percentof the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;
> 
> ii.  The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;
> 
> iii.  The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642;
> 
> iv.  60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.
> 
> « More recent studies confirm these observations. Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-CityChildren
> 
> 
> "Classes in Catholic parochial schools tended to be larger than in private schools in general. More than 62 percent of the Catholic parochial schools had an average class size of 25 or more, a substantially higher proportion than private schools overall (36 percent)."
> Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94 / Catholic-Parochial Schools
> 
> 
> 
> "Catholic schools are attractive to non-Catholics for several reasons, parents and Catholic educators say. They offer the close supervision and small classes of private schools at a fraction of the cost - often as little as $1,000 a year. Most important, along with academics, many parents say, is that Catholic schools provide discipline and instruct students in morals and values through their religious teaching."  More Non-Catholic Students Trying Catholic Schools
> 
> 
> And....my fav, home schooling.
Click to expand...


I don't doubt about the quality of catholic schools. But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime. Parents don't have enough knowledge and are not able to be the teachers of their own children on many other reasons too - and it's much more fun for children to go to school and to have contact to other children there.

But take Pope Benedict XVI. as an example. What was wrong with the schools he visited? He discussed even with the best atheistic philosophers and wan. I read for example once also a very interesting article about his use of the Latin language. He was one of the best living users of the Latin language at all. Lots of Clerics are only translating their thoughts into the Latin language - but he was able to use the structure of the Latin language as if it would had been his own mothertongue - although German is not a language with big latin roots like other languages.

But okay - whatever I think about schools has not a lot to do with the USA. The USA has to do it in a way how it is the best for the USA. The most important "thing" in a school are the individual children.


----------



## defcon4

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thy words fall upon deaf ears.
> 
> 
> 
> It always happens. The question about God's existence should not be the subject of dispute.
> God exist to those who believe in a Creator as a Supreme Being and God doesn't exist for those who believe that they do not believe, what actually is a belief what acknowledges God in a negative sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Double talk.  Nonsense.
> 
> No creator means just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I observe the creator and his/her wonderful works every day.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Stop posting stupid videos. No ones clicking on them.*
Click to expand...

I do.... and they are great! Stop whining. It is not his fault you don't understand the correlations. I wish Damaged Eagle would *****CHUCKLE***** more.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Socialist said:


> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.




the universe is finite 

if it had a start then it has an end


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something happened.  Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.
> 
> Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?
> 
> It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything here to give your 'belief' any more validation than mine.
> 
> Where's your evidence and proof?
> 
> All I see here is another scientific creation theology, with no evidence or proof to confirm it deserves merit, conceived by man (or woman) to comfort the minds of the unknowing and unknowledgeable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> There is prominent scientific atheist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of thepublic understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma inpop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void?
> 
> 
> 
> They have faith in total nonsense, such as Krauss' 'A Universe From Nothing"
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._"out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> 
> And....again, your request: "Where's your evidence and proof?
> 
> All I see here is another scientific creation theology, "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
Click to expand...

You make the mistake of believing real science is what you read at Harun Yahya.


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government schooling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. On the other side I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites [only]?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church: Albertus Magnus. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I had to laugh a lot because he needed two years to find out what everyone knows. But I never understood why he became angry, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pleeeezzzze.....stop the "elites" nonsense.
> 
> 
> Factors to consider at the Church-state intersection:
> Many families favored the safety, discipline, and attention to character development in addition to academics, but would have to continue paying public school property taxes in addition to tuition.
> Teacher unions opposed any aid to schools that were not unionized.
> Urban parochial schools were serving a growing share of disadvantaged and frequently non-Catholic youngsters. In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation found that, of the Catholic school students in these Catholic high schools in New York City, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic.
> 
> i.  Over 66 percentof the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;
> 
> ii.  The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;
> 
> iii.  The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642;
> 
> iv.  60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.
> 
> « More recent studies confirm these observations. Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-CityChildren
> 
> 
> "Classes in Catholic parochial schools tended to be larger than in private schools in general. More than 62 percent of the Catholic parochial schools had an average class size of 25 or more, a substantially higher proportion than private schools overall (36 percent)."
> Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94 / Catholic-Parochial Schools
> 
> 
> 
> "Catholic schools are attractive to non-Catholics for several reasons, parents and Catholic educators say. They offer the close supervision and small classes of private schools at a fraction of the cost - often as little as $1,000 a year. Most important, along with academics, many parents say, is that Catholic schools provide discipline and instruct students in morals and values through their religious teaching."  More Non-Catholic Students Trying Catholic Schools
> 
> 
> And....my fav, home schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't doubt about the quality of catholic schools. But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime. Parents don't have enough knowledge and are not able to be the teachers of their own children on many reasons  - and it's much more fun for children to go to school and to have contact to other children there. But take Pope Benedict XVI. as an example. What was wrong with the schools he visited? He discussed even with the best atheistic philosophers and wan. I read for exampel once also a very interesting article about his knowldege of the Laltin language. He was one of the best living users of the Latin language. Lots of Clerics are only translatuing their thoughts into the Latin language - but he was able to use the structure of of the Latin language as if it would had been his mothertongue - although German is not a language with big latin roots like other languages.
Click to expand...



"But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime."

That pretty much identifies you as a fool.

*The Results*

Overall the study showed significant advances in homeschool academic achievement as well as revealing that issues such as student gender, parents’ education level, and family income had little bearing on the results of homeschooled students.

*National Average Percentile Scores*

*Subtest*

*Homeschool*

*Public School*

Reading

89

50

Language

84

50

Math

84

50

Science

86

50

Social Studies

84

50

Corea

88

50

Compositeb

86

50

a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.


Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.

*$34,999 or less*—85th percentile
*$35,000–$49,999*—86th percentile
*$50,000–$69,999*—86th percentile
*$70,000 or more*—89th percentile

The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.

*Neither parent has a college degree*—83rd percentile
*One parent has a college degree*—86th percentile
*Both parents have a college degree*—90th percentile

Whether either parent was a certified teacher did not matter.

*Certified (i.e., either parent ever certified)*—87th percentile
*Not certified (i.e., neither parent ever certified)*—88th percentile

Parental spending on home education made little difference.

*Spent $600 or more on the student*—89th percentile
*Spent under $600 on the student*—86th percentile

The extent of government regulation on homeschoolers did not affect the results.

*Low state regulation*—87th percentile
*Medium state regulation*—88th percentile
*High state regulation*—87th percentile
HSLDA: New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement


----------



## defcon4

sealybobo said:


> I remember for a couple days after deciding for good that there is no God I was a little uncomfortable and felt a little guilty and sad.
> 
> *If there was a God and he wanted me to believe he would have given me a sign. *He didn't. He did what he always does. Absolutely nothing.


That's exactly what your problem is. You think God, as an old white haired and white bearded man, is sitting in the clouds wrapped in a white bed sheet wants you to do things and heals and doesn't heal and let people suffer yet rewards seemingly evil deeds. There are people who share that belief with you but God as the Creator is totally different concept. God doesn't get involved with our daily miserable lives.


----------



## Mudda

defcon4 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember for a couple days after deciding for good that there is no God I was a little uncomfortable and felt a little guilty and sad.
> 
> *If there was a God and he wanted me to believe he would have given me a sign. *He didn't. He did what he always does. Absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what your problem is. You think God, as an old white haired and white bearded man, is sitting in the clouds wrapped in a white bed sheet wants you to do things and heals and doesn't heal and let people suffer yet rewards seemingly evil deeds. There are people who share that belief with you but God as the Creator is totally different concept. God doesn't get involved with our daily miserable lives.
Click to expand...

God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> There is no way to "know 'God'" other than by unique, personal, intimate knowledge. And that is indistinguishable from hallucination.



And now is your problem if someone says the same to you about your belief. You are no able to know "there is no god". That's your belief. If I'm "wrong" and god decides not to be (what I anyway would not expect to be true in such a form how most atheists today think about) then I don't have any problem with this decisison of god. But what do you do if the nothing decides not to exist any longer and to become our universe? Will you start to live here in this case?


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you like to say with this very short sentence. I prefer schools for everyone - not schools for elites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. On the other side I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites [only]?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church: Albertus Magnus. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I had to laugh a lot because he needed two years to find out what everyone knows. But I never understood why he became angry, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pleeeezzzze.....stop the "elites" nonsense.
> 
> 
> Factors to consider at the Church-state intersection:
> Many families favored the safety, discipline, and attention to character development in addition to academics, but would have to continue paying public school property taxes in addition to tuition.
> Teacher unions opposed any aid to schools that were not unionized.
> Urban parochial schools were serving a growing share of disadvantaged and frequently non-Catholic youngsters. In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation found that, of the Catholic school students in these Catholic high schools in New York City, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic.
> 
> i.  Over 66 percentof the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;
> 
> ii.  The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;
> 
> iii.  The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642;
> 
> iv.  60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.
> 
> « More recent studies confirm these observations. Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-CityChildren
> 
> 
> "Classes in Catholic parochial schools tended to be larger than in private schools in general. More than 62 percent of the Catholic parochial schools had an average class size of 25 or more, a substantially higher proportion than private schools overall (36 percent)."
> Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94 / Catholic-Parochial Schools
> 
> 
> 
> "Catholic schools are attractive to non-Catholics for several reasons, parents and Catholic educators say. They offer the close supervision and small classes of private schools at a fraction of the cost - often as little as $1,000 a year. Most important, along with academics, many parents say, is that Catholic schools provide discipline and instruct students in morals and values through their religious teaching."  More Non-Catholic Students Trying Catholic Schools
> 
> 
> And....my fav, home schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't doubt about the quality of catholic schools. But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime. Parents don't have enough knowledge and are not able to be the teachers of their own children on many reasons  - and it's much more fun for children to go to school and to have contact to other children there. But take Pope Benedict XVI. as an example. What was wrong with the schools he visited? He discussed even with the best atheistic philosophers and wan. I read for exampel once also a very interesting article about his knowldege of the Laltin language. He was one of the best living users of the Latin language. Lots of Clerics are only translatuing their thoughts into the Latin language - but he was able to use the structure of of the Latin language as if it would had been his mothertongue - although German is not a language with big latin roots like other languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime."
> 
> That pretty much identifies you as a fool.
> 
> *The Results*
> 
> Overall the study showed significant advances in homeschool academic achievement as well as revealing that issues such as student gender, parents’ education level, and family income had little bearing on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *National Average Percentile Scores*
> 
> *Subtest*
> 
> *Homeschool*
> 
> *Public School*
> 
> Reading
> 
> 89
> 
> 50
> 
> Language
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Math
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Science
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> Social Studies
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Corea
> 
> 88
> 
> 50
> 
> Compositeb
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
> b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.
> 
> 
> Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *$34,999 or less*—85th percentile
> *$35,000–$49,999*—86th percentile
> *$50,000–$69,999*—86th percentile
> *$70,000 or more*—89th percentile
> 
> The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.
> 
> *Neither parent has a college degree*—83rd percentile
> *One parent has a college degree*—86th percentile
> *Both parents have a college degree*—90th percentile
> 
> Whether either parent was a certified teacher did not matter.
> 
> *Certified (i.e., either parent ever certified)*—87th percentile
> *Not certified (i.e., neither parent ever certified)*—88th percentile
> 
> Parental spending on home education made little difference.
> 
> *Spent $600 or more on the student*—89th percentile
> *Spent under $600 on the student*—86th percentile
> 
> The extent of government regulation on homeschoolers did not affect the results.
> 
> *Low state regulation*—87th percentile
> *Medium state regulation*—88th percentile
> *High state regulation*—87th percentile
> HSLDA: New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement
Click to expand...


The school system of the USA is for me personally not very interesting. I would not know what to do with knowledge about. Let me give you this thought of one of my teachers. He said once: "_Let us be honest. Even the worst school system is not able to inhibit a talented student to learn something_".


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer objective and informative schooling, not indoctrination, i.e., government schooling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. On the other side I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites [only]?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church: Albertus Magnus. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I had to laugh a lot because he needed two years to find out what everyone knows. But I never understood why he became angry, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pleeeezzzze.....stop the "elites" nonsense.
> 
> 
> Factors to consider at the Church-state intersection:
> Many families favored the safety, discipline, and attention to character development in addition to academics, but would have to continue paying public school property taxes in addition to tuition.
> Teacher unions opposed any aid to schools that were not unionized.
> Urban parochial schools were serving a growing share of disadvantaged and frequently non-Catholic youngsters. In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation found that, of the Catholic school students in these Catholic high schools in New York City, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic.
> 
> i.  Over 66 percentof the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;
> 
> ii.  The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;
> 
> iii.  The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642;
> 
> iv.  60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.
> 
> « More recent studies confirm these observations. Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-CityChildren
> 
> 
> "Classes in Catholic parochial schools tended to be larger than in private schools in general. More than 62 percent of the Catholic parochial schools had an average class size of 25 or more, a substantially higher proportion than private schools overall (36 percent)."
> Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94 / Catholic-Parochial Schools
> 
> 
> 
> "Catholic schools are attractive to non-Catholics for several reasons, parents and Catholic educators say. They offer the close supervision and small classes of private schools at a fraction of the cost - often as little as $1,000 a year. Most important, along with academics, many parents say, is that Catholic schools provide discipline and instruct students in morals and values through their religious teaching."  More Non-Catholic Students Trying Catholic Schools
> 
> 
> And....my fav, home schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't doubt about the quality of catholic schools. But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime. Parents don't have enough knowledge and are not able to be the teachers of their own children on many reasons  - and it's much more fun for children to go to school and to have contact to other children there. But take Pope Benedict XVI. as an example. What was wrong with the schools he visited? He discussed even with the best atheistic philosophers and wan. I read for exampel once also a very interesting article about his knowldege of the Laltin language. He was one of the best living users of the Latin language. Lots of Clerics are only translatuing their thoughts into the Latin language - but he was able to use the structure of of the Latin language as if it would had been his mothertongue - although German is not a language with big latin roots like other languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime."
> 
> That pretty much identifies you as a fool.
> 
> *The Results*
> 
> Overall the study showed significant advances in homeschool academic achievement as well as revealing that issues such as student gender, parents’ education level, and family income had little bearing on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *National Average Percentile Scores*
> 
> *Subtest*
> 
> *Homeschool*
> 
> *Public School*
> 
> Reading
> 
> 89
> 
> 50
> 
> Language
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Math
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Science
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> Social Studies
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Corea
> 
> 88
> 
> 50
> 
> Compositeb
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
> b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.
> 
> 
> Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *$34,999 or less*—85th percentile
> *$35,000–$49,999*—86th percentile
> *$50,000–$69,999*—86th percentile
> *$70,000 or more*—89th percentile
> 
> The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.
> 
> *Neither parent has a college degree*—83rd percentile
> *One parent has a college degree*—86th percentile
> *Both parents have a college degree*—90th percentile
> 
> Whether either parent was a certified teacher did not matter.
> 
> *Certified (i.e., either parent ever certified)*—87th percentile
> *Not certified (i.e., neither parent ever certified)*—88th percentile
> 
> Parental spending on home education made little difference.
> 
> *Spent $600 or more on the student*—89th percentile
> *Spent under $600 on the student*—86th percentile
> 
> The extent of government regulation on homeschoolers did not affect the results.
> 
> *Low state regulation*—87th percentile
> *Medium state regulation*—88th percentile
> *High state regulation*—87th percentile
> HSLDA: New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The school system of the USA is for me personally not very interesting. I would not know what to do with knowledge about. Let me give you this thought of one of my teachers. He said once: "_Let us be honest. Even the worst school system is not able to inhibit a talented student to learn something_".
Click to expand...




So, it seems that you have retreated from this absurd comment..".But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime.'

Excellent.


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are thinking about in this context. But indeed this is a real danger how Commies and others showed to everyone. On the other side I don't see how to avoid such problems with private schools [¿for elites [only]?]. I'm for example still amused about a phycisist whose child was in a school with the name of a famous Saint of the catholic church: Albertus Magnus. After two years he found out that they are praying every morning in this school. He was an atheist and became angry. I had to laugh a lot because he needed two years to find out what everyone knows. But I never understood why he became angry, because he was not ashamed to get a job from people who believed in god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pleeeezzzze.....stop the "elites" nonsense.
> 
> 
> Factors to consider at the Church-state intersection:
> Many families favored the safety, discipline, and attention to character development in addition to academics, but would have to continue paying public school property taxes in addition to tuition.
> Teacher unions opposed any aid to schools that were not unionized.
> Urban parochial schools were serving a growing share of disadvantaged and frequently non-Catholic youngsters. In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation found that, of the Catholic school students in these Catholic high schools in New York City, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic.
> 
> i.  Over 66 percentof the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;
> 
> ii.  The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;
> 
> iii.  The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642;
> 
> iv.  60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.
> 
> « More recent studies confirm these observations. Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-CityChildren
> 
> 
> "Classes in Catholic parochial schools tended to be larger than in private schools in general. More than 62 percent of the Catholic parochial schools had an average class size of 25 or more, a substantially higher proportion than private schools overall (36 percent)."
> Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94 / Catholic-Parochial Schools
> 
> 
> 
> "Catholic schools are attractive to non-Catholics for several reasons, parents and Catholic educators say. They offer the close supervision and small classes of private schools at a fraction of the cost - often as little as $1,000 a year. Most important, along with academics, many parents say, is that Catholic schools provide discipline and instruct students in morals and values through their religious teaching."  More Non-Catholic Students Trying Catholic Schools
> 
> 
> And....my fav, home schooling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't doubt about the quality of catholic schools. But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime. Parents don't have enough knowledge and are not able to be the teachers of their own children on many reasons  - and it's much more fun for children to go to school and to have contact to other children there. But take Pope Benedict XVI. as an example. What was wrong with the schools he visited? He discussed even with the best atheistic philosophers and wan. I read for exampel once also a very interesting article about his knowldege of the Laltin language. He was one of the best living users of the Latin language. Lots of Clerics are only translatuing their thoughts into the Latin language - but he was able to use the structure of of the Latin language as if it would had been his mothertongue - although German is not a language with big latin roots like other languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime."
> 
> That pretty much identifies you as a fool.
> 
> *The Results*
> 
> Overall the study showed significant advances in homeschool academic achievement as well as revealing that issues such as student gender, parents’ education level, and family income had little bearing on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *National Average Percentile Scores*
> 
> *Subtest*
> 
> *Homeschool*
> 
> *Public School*
> 
> Reading
> 
> 89
> 
> 50
> 
> Language
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Math
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Science
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> Social Studies
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Corea
> 
> 88
> 
> 50
> 
> Compositeb
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
> b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.
> 
> 
> Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *$34,999 or less*—85th percentile
> *$35,000–$49,999*—86th percentile
> *$50,000–$69,999*—86th percentile
> *$70,000 or more*—89th percentile
> 
> The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.
> 
> *Neither parent has a college degree*—83rd percentile
> *One parent has a college degree*—86th percentile
> *Both parents have a college degree*—90th percentile
> 
> Whether either parent was a certified teacher did not matter.
> 
> *Certified (i.e., either parent ever certified)*—87th percentile
> *Not certified (i.e., neither parent ever certified)*—88th percentile
> 
> Parental spending on home education made little difference.
> 
> *Spent $600 or more on the student*—89th percentile
> *Spent under $600 on the student*—86th percentile
> 
> The extent of government regulation on homeschoolers did not affect the results.
> 
> *Low state regulation*—87th percentile
> *Medium state regulation*—88th percentile
> *High state regulation*—87th percentile
> HSLDA: New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The school system of the USA is for me personally not very interesting. I would not know what to do with knowledge about. Let me give you this thought of one of my teachers. He said once: "_Let us be honest. Even the worst school system is not able to inhibit a talented student to learn something_".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it seems that you have retreated from this absurd comment..".But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime.'
> 
> Excellent.
Click to expand...


Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime. But I don't not know what's in this case the best for the USA - and even if I would know it this would be nearly unimportant because I'm not a citizen of the USA.


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pleeeezzzze.....stop the "elites" nonsense.
> 
> 
> Factors to consider at the Church-state intersection:
> Many families favored the safety, discipline, and attention to character development in addition to academics, but would have to continue paying public school property taxes in addition to tuition.
> Teacher unions opposed any aid to schools that were not unionized.
> Urban parochial schools were serving a growing share of disadvantaged and frequently non-Catholic youngsters. In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation found that, of the Catholic school students in these Catholic high schools in New York City, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic.
> 
> i.  Over 66 percentof the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;
> 
> ii.  The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;
> 
> iii.  The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642;
> 
> iv.  60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.
> 
> « More recent studies confirm these observations. Why Catholic Schools Spell Success For America's Inner-CityChildren
> 
> 
> "Classes in Catholic parochial schools tended to be larger than in private schools in general. More than 62 percent of the Catholic parochial schools had an average class size of 25 or more, a substantially higher proportion than private schools overall (36 percent)."
> Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94 / Catholic-Parochial Schools
> 
> 
> 
> "Catholic schools are attractive to non-Catholics for several reasons, parents and Catholic educators say. They offer the close supervision and small classes of private schools at a fraction of the cost - often as little as $1,000 a year. Most important, along with academics, many parents say, is that Catholic schools provide discipline and instruct students in morals and values through their religious teaching."  More Non-Catholic Students Trying Catholic Schools
> 
> 
> And....my fav, home schooling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt about the quality of catholic schools. But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime. Parents don't have enough knowledge and are not able to be the teachers of their own children on many reasons  - and it's much more fun for children to go to school and to have contact to other children there. But take Pope Benedict XVI. as an example. What was wrong with the schools he visited? He discussed even with the best atheistic philosophers and wan. I read for exampel once also a very interesting article about his knowldege of the Laltin language. He was one of the best living users of the Latin language. Lots of Clerics are only translatuing their thoughts into the Latin language - but he was able to use the structure of of the Latin language as if it would had been his mothertongue - although German is not a language with big latin roots like other languages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime."
> 
> That pretty much identifies you as a fool.
> 
> *The Results*
> 
> Overall the study showed significant advances in homeschool academic achievement as well as revealing that issues such as student gender, parents’ education level, and family income had little bearing on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *National Average Percentile Scores*
> 
> *Subtest*
> 
> *Homeschool*
> 
> *Public School*
> 
> Reading
> 
> 89
> 
> 50
> 
> Language
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Math
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Science
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> Social Studies
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Corea
> 
> 88
> 
> 50
> 
> Compositeb
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
> b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.
> 
> 
> Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *$34,999 or less*—85th percentile
> *$35,000–$49,999*—86th percentile
> *$50,000–$69,999*—86th percentile
> *$70,000 or more*—89th percentile
> 
> The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.
> 
> *Neither parent has a college degree*—83rd percentile
> *One parent has a college degree*—86th percentile
> *Both parents have a college degree*—90th percentile
> 
> Whether either parent was a certified teacher did not matter.
> 
> *Certified (i.e., either parent ever certified)*—87th percentile
> *Not certified (i.e., neither parent ever certified)*—88th percentile
> 
> Parental spending on home education made little difference.
> 
> *Spent $600 or more on the student*—89th percentile
> *Spent under $600 on the student*—86th percentile
> 
> The extent of government regulation on homeschoolers did not affect the results.
> 
> *Low state regulation*—87th percentile
> *Medium state regulation*—88th percentile
> *High state regulation*—87th percentile
> HSLDA: New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The school system of the USA is for me personally not very interesting. I would not know what to do with knowledge about. Let me give you this thought of one of my teachers. He said once: "_Let us be honest. Even the worst school system is not able to inhibit a talented student to learn something_".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it seems that you have retreated from this absurd comment..".But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime.'
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime. But I don't not know what's in this case the best for the USA - and even if I would know it this would be nearly unimportant because I'm not a citizen of the USA.
Click to expand...


"Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime."
As this is in the face of easily obtainable evidence, you remain a fool.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The fact is we don't know. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know god is not existing?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So unwilling it is. Every time you post a video to me I say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> So by posting a video you are asking me to say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> Go ahead, post another video. I know you like hearing fuck your God in the ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about íf I would be an ET with a big red button? Or more worse: I could be an ancient germanic warrior with a tomahawk drone. So what about an answer? Do you say normally "There is no god" or do you say normally "I don't believe in [the existance of] god".
Click to expand...

I believe you're either being stupid or a dick posting those video's.  What is wrong with you?


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the same íf someone uses the word "negroe"?
Click to expand...

Too bad I'll never watch one video


----------



## sealybobo

defcon4 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember for a couple days after deciding for good that there is no God I was a little uncomfortable and felt a little guilty and sad.
> 
> *If there was a God and he wanted me to believe he would have given me a sign. *He didn't. He did what he always does. Absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what your problem is. You think God, as an old white haired and white bearded man, is sitting in the clouds wrapped in a white bed sheet wants you to do things and heals and doesn't heal and let people suffer yet rewards seemingly evil deeds. There are people who share that belief with you but God as the Creator is totally different concept. God doesn't get involved with our daily miserable lives.
Click to expand...

I don't think God exists at all.

How do you think of god?  Because really if you aren't thinking what the Jews Chrstians or Muslims are thinking and saying, you're really just a little cult.  Some would say a solo church.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist. And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If science doesn't hold the answer to all questions then how do you know God doesn't exist?
> 
> As for your question... I'm waiting on a response from some all knowledgeable scientific minded atheist to provide me with an input on that prior to providing a response of my own.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got it! If God doesn't exist you will still wake up today, still go to sleep tonight, still either be a good or bad person, you will still die one day.
Click to expand...


What makes you think God cares what you do in your subjective reality or your abstract human concepts of good and evil?



sealybobo said:


> In other words God has no impact on anything. Other than in your head of course.



God has all sorts of impact. Without God we wouldn't exist.



sealybobo said:


> Now try posting without putting up a music video that no one is watching



No.



*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something happened.  Defining that "something" as a miracle is childish.
> 
> Look at it this way.  If a balloon is steadily given a flow of air eventually it will burst.  Is it a miracle that the balloon explodes?
> 
> It is my best guess that the matter in the form of the electrons etc with all the spaces removed reached a point of tipping past equilibrium it exploded and formed our universe.  I believe that in the distant past before our universe was formed the universe was gobbled up by a giant black hole resulting in a ball  consisting of matter minus the distances between it's building materials.  Eventually the hole ran out of material to gobble and the former universe ceased to exist.  Then something tipped the balance.  I suspect the black hole is what triggered the new universe when it in it's last snack ate it's self leaving nothing to hold the ball of matter.  No miracle..just bad digestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything here to give your 'belief' any more validation than mine.
> 
> Where's your evidence and proof?
> 
> All I see here is another scientific creation theology, with no evidence or proof to confirm it deserves merit, conceived by man (or woman) to comfort the minds of the unknowing and unknowledgeable.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your belief is based on what you don't know. Ignorance
Click to expand...






You're the one who says you don't know what kick started the universe.

I'm quite comfortable with calling it a miracle of God.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

TyroneSlothrop said:


> How powerful can God be
> That must be some powerful Christian God that his believers are intimidated by Yoga...Yoga scary
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Christian parents freak out over yoga exercises at Georgia school: ‘This is very scary’*







Powerful enough to create (kick start) a universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## forkup

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist. And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If science doesn't hold the answer to all questions then how do you know God doesn't exist?
> 
> As for your question... I'm waiting on a response from some all knowledgeable scientific minded atheist to provide me with an input on that prior to providing a response of my own.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got it! If God doesn't exist you will still wake up today, still go to sleep tonight, still either be a good or bad person, you will still die one day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think God cares what you do in your subjective reality or your abstract human concepts of good and evil?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words God has no impact on anything. Other than in your head of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has all sorts of impact. Without God we wouldn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now try posting without putting up a music video that no one is watching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> View attachment 68653
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Then what kick started the universe? If that's the question I've got a good scientific answer. We don't know. As of yet there isn't a scientific theory to explain it. Does that mean god exist? Maybe, I can't disprove it so it's a possibility. Until about 150 years ago we didn't know about the existence of galaxies. We didnt conceive atoms, we hardly understood elektricity, tectonic drift, where we came from was  just begining to get understood. Al of these issues religion felt it had a biblical answer for and they collided with the scientific community. Violently even. My point is this, since religion as a concept started, it gave answers to everything we didn't understand. From what the sun was to modern monotheism. Over the millenia the place where knowledge has to simply claim ignorance has gotten smaller and smaller. And you like most religious ppl, use the fact that there's a lack of knowledge as proof that God exists. Religion has proven
wrong time and time again. It's actually pretty understandable. Religion offers an easy answer to EVERY question, God. So since science doesn't offer that fix all mentality, you  think of it as a weakness. When in truth the not knowing is actually the driving force behind science.


----------



## Golem

Damaged Eagle said:


> Powerful enough to create (kick start) a universe.



It is most likely that nothing "kick started" the universe.  The Universe just ... is...


----------



## Damaged Eagle

HUGGY said:


> Of course you don't see any difference.  You filter your the information regarding how the universe came to be through your concept and understanding of the bible.  That process varies from denial to just pure faith....meaning that which you do not understand you take the scripture's viewpoint even if it does not make any scientific sense.  The more a scientific argument centers on basic ideas such as the Big Bang the more apt you are to defer to a biblical passage or "witness".



Where and when did I state that I was Christian or a member of any other major religion?

I think you better go back and read the entire thread before assuming things.



HUGGY said:


> It is unlikely you are capable of thinking freely about matters such as "how the universe came into being" without comparing these ideas to and deferring to the bible references.



I think you'd be absolutely WRONG.



HUGGY said:


> Religists are to me similar any group of people that have acquired a strong prejudice which makes it impossible to think openly about some subjects.



I'm seeing quite a bit of that from confirmed atheists, such as yourself, who supposedly know all about science.



HUGGY said:


> For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over.



You mean like suggesting to an atheist that a miracle occurred when the universe began?



HUGGY said:


> The same thing happens when the basic fundamentals of christianity are challenged.



That's between you and them.



HUGGY said:


> The human brain is only capable of just so much anyway.  Trying to visualize the big bang even without poisoning the concept with made up images of some humanoid creature lurking nearby orchestrating the whole event is just too much silliness mixed in with a cold scientific visualization.



I can visualize the universe being created by God without all the metaphorical visual aids or with them.

Why do you seem to have a problem with that? No imagination perhaps?



HUGGY said:


> If someone has invested a substantial portion of their life sincerely believing that there is an actual god that has created everything the shock associated with finding out that there actually is no such being would be too much and drive many christians over the edge to mental breakdowns.



You seem to spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone that there is no God....

Are you ready for a melt down?



HUGGY said:


> In short ..you do not want to know that there is no god and there never was a god.  Your mind will not allow that idea to sink in no matter how much proof I were to provide.



It would seem that the opposite is true in your case.





I observe God and his/her wondrous works everyday.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mudda said:


> God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.
















The proof is all around you.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

forkup said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist. And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If science doesn't hold the answer to all questions then how do you know God doesn't exist?
> 
> As for your question... I'm waiting on a response from some all knowledgeable scientific minded atheist to provide me with an input on that prior to providing a response of my own.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got it! If God doesn't exist you will still wake up today, still go to sleep tonight, still either be a good or bad person, you will still die one day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think God cares what you do in your subjective reality or your abstract human concepts of good and evil?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words God has no impact on anything. Other than in your head of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has all sorts of impact. Without God we wouldn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now try posting without putting up a music video that no one is watching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> View attachment 68653
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what kick started the universe? If that's the question I've got a good scientific answer. We don't know. As of yet there isn't a scientific theory to explain it. Does that mean god exist? Maybe, I can't disprove it so it's a possibility. Until about 150 years ago we didn't know about the existence of galaxies. We didnt conceive atoms, we hardly understood elektricity, tectonic drift, where we came from was  just begining to get understood. Al of these issues religion felt it had a biblical answer for and they collided with the scientific community. Violently even. My point is this, since religion as a concept started, it gave answers to everything we didn't understand. From what the sun was to modern monotheism. Over the millenia the place where knowledge has to simply claim ignorance has gotten smaller and smaller. And you like most religious ppl, use the fact that there's a lack of knowledge as proof that God exists. Religion has proven
> wrong time and time again. It's actually pretty understandable. Religion offers an easy answer to EVERY question, God. So since science doesn't offer that fix all mentality, you  think of it as a weakness. When in truth the not knowing is actually the driving force behind science.
Click to expand...







Perhaps you should read the entire thread prior to criticizing my belief in God.

The only one showing ignorance at this time would be yourself.

I'm quite comfortable with calling the creation of the universe a miracle of God and would gladly increase funding into scientific research to find out how God went about doing this miracle.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Golem

Maybe.... but you were the one offering "what kick-started the universe" as "proof" of God's existence.

Have you now changed your mind and acknowledge that there is no proof because there is no need?   That would render the whole discussion that you started meaningless.[/QUOTE]


----------



## sealybobo

Golem said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Powerful enough to create (kick start) a universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is most likely that nothing "kick started" the universe.  The Universe just ... is...
Click to expand...

And always has been and always will be.  Will our sun be forever?  No.  Will the milky way last forever?  No.  Will our universe that we see last forever?  No.  One day every light will fade.  We guestimate we have about another 10 billion years.  So what will happen after the last star burns out?  It will be complete darkness.  And all the rock from every star will drift around for a few billion years until who knows?  Maybe another universe will form after all the rocks join together and condense into something the size of your fist.  Then explode into a big bang and then in 13 billion years from that date, some life on some planet in the new universe will think they are special and a god created it all for them.  LOL


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Golem said:


> Maybe.... but you were the one offering "what kick-started the universe" as "proof" of God's existence.
> 
> Have you now changed your mind and acknowledge that there is no proof because there is no need?   That would render the whole discussion that you started meaningless.


[/QUOTE]






Changing what I posted in your quote is a reportable offence anywhere on this forum.

I suggest you fix this and attempt to make some sense.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Golem

sealybobo said:


> Golem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Powerful enough to create (kick start) a universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is most likely that nothing "kick started" the universe.  The Universe just ... is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And always has been and always will be.  Will our sun be forever?  No.  Will the milky way last forever?  No.  Will our universe that we see last forever?  No.  One day every light will fade.  We guestimate we have about another 10 billion years.  So what will happen after the last star burns out?  It will be complete darkness.  And all the rock from every star will drift around for a few billion years until who knows?  Maybe another universe will form after all the rocks join together and condense into something the size of your fist.  Then explode into a big bang and then in 13 billion years from that date, some life on some planet in the new universe will think they are special and a god created it all for them.  LOL
Click to expand...


There is no "after".   Time is only one more dimension in the Space-Time continuum.  

Asking "what happens after?" is like asking "What is North of the North Pole?"

But my point is that most scientists tend to believe that there are multiple space-time continua.   Ours, the one that started with the Big Bang, is just one of an infinite number.  So, bottom line, there is no "need" for anything to "kick-start" the Universe.


----------



## Golem

Damaged Eagle said:


> Changing what I posted in your quote is a reportable offence anywhere on this forum.



My mistake.  Sorry.  It was unintentional.


----------



## sealybobo

Golem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Powerful enough to create (kick start) a universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is most likely that nothing "kick started" the universe.  The Universe just ... is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And always has been and always will be.  Will our sun be forever?  No.  Will the milky way last forever?  No.  Will our universe that we see last forever?  No.  One day every light will fade.  We guestimate we have about another 10 billion years.  So what will happen after the last star burns out?  It will be complete darkness.  And all the rock from every star will drift around for a few billion years until who knows?  Maybe another universe will form after all the rocks join together and condense into something the size of your fist.  Then explode into a big bang and then in 13 billion years from that date, some life on some planet in the new universe will think they are special and a god created it all for them.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "after".   Time is only one more dimension in the Space-Time continuum.
> 
> Asking "what happens after?" is like asking "What is North of the North Pole?"
> 
> But my point is that most scientists tend to believe that there are multiple space-time continua.   Ours, the one that started with the Big Bang, is just one of an infinite number.  So, bottom line, there is no "need" for anything to "kick-start" the Universe.
Click to expand...

See one of those small dots?  That's us.  And I don't mean our planet I mean our universe.  Each bubble is a universe.  But now there are infinite universes and dark space in between each of them.  ENDLESS.


----------



## ChrisL

You cannot reason with religious people.  They are like insane people.


----------



## defcon4

sealybobo said:


> I don't think God exists at all.
> 
> How do you think of god? Because really if you aren't thinking what the Jews Chrstians or Muslims are thinking and saying, you're really just a little cult. Some would say a solo church.


Suits me well. God is incorporeal.


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist. And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If science doesn't hold the answer to all questions then how do you know God doesn't exist?
> 
> As for your question... I'm waiting on a response from some all knowledgeable scientific minded atheist to provide me with an input on that prior to providing a response of my own.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got it! If God doesn't exist you will still wake up today, still go to sleep tonight, still either be a good or bad person, you will still die one day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think God cares what you do in your subjective reality or your abstract human concepts of good and evil?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words God has no impact on anything. Other than in your head of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has all sorts of impact. Without God we wouldn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now try posting without putting up a music video that no one is watching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> View attachment 68653
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what kick started the universe? If that's the question I've got a good scientific answer. We don't know. As of yet there isn't a scientific theory to explain it. Does that mean god exist? Maybe, I can't disprove it so it's a possibility. Until about 150 years ago we didn't know about the existence of galaxies. We didnt conceive atoms, we hardly understood elektricity, tectonic drift, where we came from was  just begining to get understood. Al of these issues religion felt it had a biblical answer for and they collided with the scientific community. Violently even. My point is this, since religion as a concept started, it gave answers to everything we didn't understand. From what the sun was to modern monotheism. Over the millenia the place where knowledge has to simply claim ignorance has gotten smaller and smaller. And you like most religious ppl, use the fact that there's a lack of knowledge as proof that God exists. Religion has proven
> wrong time and time again. It's actually pretty understandable. Religion offers an easy answer to EVERY question, God. So since science doesn't offer that fix all mentality, you  think of it as a weakness. When in truth the not knowing is actually the driving force behind science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should read the entire thread prior to criticizing my belief in God.
> 
> The only one showing ignorance at this time would be yourself.
> 
> I'm quite comfortable with calling the creation of the universe a miracle of God and would gladly increase funding into scientific research to find out how God went about doing this miracle.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...



You would do well to gain a working knowledge of the scientific method before suggesting that the science community be employed to study your partisan gods. How is the scientific method applied against supernaturalism?

I'm afraid that demands for acceptance of various gods has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.

Rational science is demonstrated by the scientific method. It's a logical and rational progression of ideas, theories and experimentation. It's a process of discovery which is absent in your world of religious fundamentalism wherein the world is governed by magical gods inhabiting your version of magical spirit realms.


----------



## Militants

He exist by bible and old testament ....


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't see any difference.  You filter your the information regarding how the universe came to be through your concept and understanding of the bible.  That process varies from denial to just pure faith....meaning that which you do not understand you take the scripture's viewpoint even if it does not make any scientific sense.  The more a scientific argument centers on basic ideas such as the Big Bang the more apt you are to defer to a biblical passage or "witness".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where and when did I state that I was Christian or a member of any other major religion?
> 
> I think you better go back and read the entire thread before assuming things.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unlikely you are capable of thinking freely about matters such as "how the universe came into being" without comparing these ideas to and deferring to the bible references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'd be absolutely WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religists are to me similar any group of people that have acquired a strong prejudice which makes it impossible to think openly about some subjects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm seeing quite a bit of that from confirmed atheists, such as yourself, who supposedly know all about science.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like suggesting to an atheist that a miracle occurred when the universe began?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing happens when the basic fundamentals of christianity are challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's between you and them.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human brain is only capable of just so much anyway.  Trying to visualize the big bang even without poisoning the concept with made up images of some humanoid creature lurking nearby orchestrating the whole event is just too much silliness mixed in with a cold scientific visualization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can visualize the universe being created by God without all the metaphorical visual aids or with them.
> 
> Why do you seem to have a problem with that? No imagination perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has invested a substantial portion of their life sincerely believing that there is an actual god that has created everything the shock associated with finding out that there actually is no such being would be too much and drive many christians over the edge to mental breakdowns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone that there is no God....
> 
> Are you ready for a melt down?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short ..you do not want to know that there is no god and there never was a god.  Your mind will not allow that idea to sink in no matter how much proof I were to provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would seem that the opposite is true in your case.
> 
> View attachment 68664
> 
> I observe God and his/her wondrous works everyday.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> "Where and when did I state that I was Christian or a member of any other major religion?"
> 
> Do you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save our souls from "original sin?"  If so, then you are a "CHRISTian."  Easy enough.  Lol.
> 
> Do you know what the original sin was?  Eve eating the apple from the Tree of KNOWLEDGE.
> 
> Knowledge is a bad thing to Christians.  Stay ignorant and follow blindly like a zombie.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't see any difference.  You filter your the information regarding how the universe came to be through your concept and understanding of the bible.  That process varies from denial to just pure faith....meaning that which you do not understand you take the scripture's viewpoint even if it does not make any scientific sense.  The more a scientific argument centers on basic ideas such as the Big Bang the more apt you are to defer to a biblical passage or "witness".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where and when did I state that I was Christian or a member of any other major religion?
> 
> I think you better go back and read the entire thread before assuming things.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unlikely you are capable of thinking freely about matters such as "how the universe came into being" without comparing these ideas to and deferring to the bible references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'd be absolutely WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religists are to me similar any group of people that have acquired a strong prejudice which makes it impossible to think openly about some subjects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm seeing quite a bit of that from confirmed atheists, such as yourself, who supposedly know all about science.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like suggesting to an atheist that a miracle occurred when the universe began?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing happens when the basic fundamentals of christianity are challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's between you and them.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human brain is only capable of just so much anyway.  Trying to visualize the big bang even without poisoning the concept with made up images of some humanoid creature lurking nearby orchestrating the whole event is just too much silliness mixed in with a cold scientific visualization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can visualize the universe being created by God without all the metaphorical visual aids or with them.
> 
> Why do you seem to have a problem with that? No imagination perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has invested a substantial portion of their life sincerely believing that there is an actual god that has created everything the shock associated with finding out that there actually is no such being would be too much and drive many christians over the edge to mental breakdowns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone that there is no God....
> 
> Are you ready for a melt down?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short ..you do not want to know that there is no god and there never was a god.  Your mind will not allow that idea to sink in no matter how much proof I were to provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would seem that the opposite is true in your case.
> 
> View attachment 68664
> 
> I observe God and his/her wondrous works everyday.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Let me try this again.   

Do you believe that Christ died on the cross to cleanse us of original sin?  If so then you are a CHRISTian.  

Original sin was when Eve ate an apple from the Tree of Knowledge, and we all know that Christians hate knowledge.  Remain ignorant and follow blindly is their motto.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

zaangalewa said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
Click to expand...


The third law is not violated. The sum of all forces acting in the Universe is zero and has been since the big bang.


----------



## there4eyeM

As stated elsewhere, the fact that questions can be formed does not make them sensible. "What is more red than red?" works grammatically, but has no sense. When the subject is one for which mind and language lack comprehension, or even vocabulary, such errors of logic lead far astray.


----------



## there4eyeM

It was the tree of the knowledge of 'good' and 'evil'. Dualism, if you will.


----------



## ChrisL

They dismiss the theory of evolution for a "god" theory.  Ridiculous!  

Religious people =


----------



## Hollie

ChrisL said:


> You cannot reason with religious people.  They are like insane people.


That's a bit harsh. Talking snakes and eternal damnation for fruit theft sounds perfectly sane to me.


----------



## Mudda

Damaged Eagle said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68665
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is all around you.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

So you have nothing, got it.


----------



## sealybobo

there4eyeM said:


> It was the tree of the knowledge of 'good' and 'evil'. Dualism, if you will.


An allegory


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Golem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Powerful enough to create (kick start) a universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is most likely that nothing "kick started" the universe.  The Universe just ... is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And always has been and always will be.  Will our sun be forever?  No.  Will the milky way last forever?  No.  Will our universe that we see last forever?  No.  One day every light will fade.  We guestimate we have about another 10 billion years.  So what will happen after the last star burns out?  It will be complete darkness.  And all the rock from every star will drift around for a few billion years until who knows?  Maybe another universe will form after all the rocks join together and condense into something the size of your fist.  Then explode into a big bang and then in 13 billion years from that date, some life on some planet in the new universe will think they are special and a god created it all for them.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "after".   Time is only one more dimension in the Space-Time continuum.
> 
> Asking "what happens after?" is like asking "What is North of the North Pole?"
> 
> But my point is that most scientists tend to believe that there are multiple space-time continua.   Ours, the one that started with the Big Bang, is just one of an infinite number.  So, bottom line, there is no "need" for anything to "kick-start" the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See one of those small dots?  That's us.  And I don't mean our planet I mean our universe.  Each bubble is a universe.  But now there are infinite universes and dark space in between each of them.  ENDLESS.
Click to expand...






You have quantifiable proof of this or is this simply more scientific theology?

What happens if your proven wrong?

Oh! You just redefine the goal posts.

Weren't you accusing those who have religious beliefs of that earlier?

You still haven't shown proof of what caused the big bang to happen and I'm still going with a miracle occurred.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## defcon4

there4eyeM said:


> It was the tree of the knowledge of 'good' and 'evil'. Dualism, if you will.


Symbolizing equilibrium.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If science doesn't hold the answer to all questions then how do you know God doesn't exist?
> 
> As for your question... I'm waiting on a response from some all knowledgeable scientific minded atheist to provide me with an input on that prior to providing a response of my own.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got it! If God doesn't exist you will still wake up today, still go to sleep tonight, still either be a good or bad person, you will still die one day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think God cares what you do in your subjective reality or your abstract human concepts of good and evil?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words God has no impact on anything. Other than in your head of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God has all sorts of impact. Without God we wouldn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now try posting without putting up a music video that no one is watching
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> View attachment 68653
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what kick started the universe? If that's the question I've got a good scientific answer. We don't know. As of yet there isn't a scientific theory to explain it. Does that mean god exist? Maybe, I can't disprove it so it's a possibility. Until about 150 years ago we didn't know about the existence of galaxies. We didnt conceive atoms, we hardly understood elektricity, tectonic drift, where we came from was  just begining to get understood. Al of these issues religion felt it had a biblical answer for and they collided with the scientific community. Violently even. My point is this, since religion as a concept started, it gave answers to everything we didn't understand. From what the sun was to modern monotheism. Over the millenia the place where knowledge has to simply claim ignorance has gotten smaller and smaller. And you like most religious ppl, use the fact that there's a lack of knowledge as proof that God exists. Religion has proven
> wrong time and time again. It's actually pretty understandable. Religion offers an easy answer to EVERY question, God. So since science doesn't offer that fix all mentality, you  think of it as a weakness. When in truth the not knowing is actually the driving force behind science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should read the entire thread prior to criticizing my belief in God.
> 
> The only one showing ignorance at this time would be yourself.
> 
> I'm quite comfortable with calling the creation of the universe a miracle of God and would gladly increase funding into scientific research to find out how God went about doing this miracle.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would do well to gain a working knowledge of the scientific method before suggesting that the science community be employed to study your partisan gods. How is the scientific method applied against supernaturalism?
Click to expand...


What makes you think that I don't understand the scientific method better than you?

&

Which partisan gods would those be?



Hollie said:


> I'm afraid that demands for acceptance of various gods has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.



And yet the Hebrews and Christians came up with the idea of creation thousands of years prior to your vaulted 'Age Of Enlightenment' came up with your scientific creation theology.



Hollie said:


> Rational science is demonstrated by the scientific method. It's a logical and rational progression of ideas, theories and experimentation. It's a process of discovery which is absent in your world of religious fundamentalism wherein the world is governed by magical gods inhabiting your version of magical spirit realms.



Just what world of religious fundamentalism do you believe governs my world with magical gods?

Your very quick at criticizing others beliefs yet when asked a simple question become very defensive.

Perhaps you should lighten up and... read the rest of the thread prior to posting again.






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ChrisL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't see any difference.  You filter your the information regarding how the universe came to be through your concept and understanding of the bible.  That process varies from denial to just pure faith....meaning that which you do not understand you take the scripture's viewpoint even if it does not make any scientific sense.  The more a scientific argument centers on basic ideas such as the Big Bang the more apt you are to defer to a biblical passage or "witness".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where and when did I state that I was Christian or a member of any other major religion?
> 
> I think you better go back and read the entire thread before assuming things.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unlikely you are capable of thinking freely about matters such as "how the universe came into being" without comparing these ideas to and deferring to the bible references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'd be absolutely WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religists are to me similar any group of people that have acquired a strong prejudice which makes it impossible to think openly about some subjects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm seeing quite a bit of that from confirmed atheists, such as yourself, who supposedly know all about science.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like suggesting to an atheist that a miracle occurred when the universe began?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing happens when the basic fundamentals of christianity are challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's between you and them.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The human brain is only capable of just so much anyway.  Trying to visualize the big bang even without poisoning the concept with made up images of some humanoid creature lurking nearby orchestrating the whole event is just too much silliness mixed in with a cold scientific visualization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can visualize the universe being created by God without all the metaphorical visual aids or with them.
> 
> Why do you seem to have a problem with that? No imagination perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has invested a substantial portion of their life sincerely believing that there is an actual god that has created everything the shock associated with finding out that there actually is no such being would be too much and drive many christians over the edge to mental breakdowns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone that there is no God....
> 
> Are you ready for a melt down?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short ..you do not want to know that there is no god and there never was a god.  Your mind will not allow that idea to sink in no matter how much proof I were to provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would seem that the opposite is true in your case.
> 
> View attachment 68664
> 
> I observe God and his/her wondrous works everyday.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me try this again.
> 
> Do you believe that Christ died on the cross to cleanse us of original sin?  If so then you are a CHRISTian.
> 
> Original sin was when Eve ate an apple from the Tree of Knowledge, and we all know that Christians hate knowledge.  Remain ignorant and follow blindly is their motto.
Click to expand...







I believe I answered that in the post you attempted to quote and the line you 'attempted' to single out to ask me your question. If what I said wasn't plain enough then.....

I'll suggest that perhaps you should read the rest of the thread also.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the tree of the knowledge of 'good' and 'evil'. Dualism, if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> An allegory
Click to expand...

True and False, when clouded by ego, become Good and Bad.
Good and Bad are subject to relativism.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

OohPooPahDoo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The third law is not violated. The sum of all forces acting in the Universe is zero and has been since the big bang.
Click to expand...







However until you can explain what kick started the universe by causing the big bang Newton's First Law Of Motion has been violated.

Was it hit by a bullet or a big 'rock' to put it in motion?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Indeependent

Damaged Eagle said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The third law is not violated. The sum of all forces acting in the Universe is zero and has been since the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However until you can explain what kick started the universe by causing the big bang the Newton's First Law Of Motion has been violated.
> 
> Was it hit by a bullet or a big 'rock' to put it in motion?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


It was Stephen Hawking...every fool knows that.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mudda said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68665
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is all around you.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing, got it.
Click to expand...







I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.

What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?

I'm still going with a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Indeependent said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The third law is not violated. The sum of all forces acting in the Universe is zero and has been since the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However until you can explain what kick started the universe by causing the big bang the Newton's First Law Of Motion has been violated.
> 
> Was it hit by a bullet or a big 'rock' to put it in motion?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was Stephen Hawking...every fool knows that.
Click to expand...







I've read all his books.... Is that an informational thing that I shouldn't have posted? Oh well!

Hasn't he been flip flopping on a lot of his theories lately?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Indeependent

Damaged Eagle said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The third law is not violated. The sum of all forces acting in the Universe is zero and has been since the big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However until you can explain what kick started the universe by causing the big bang the Newton's First Law Of Motion has been violated.
> 
> Was it hit by a bullet or a big 'rock' to put it in motion?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was Stephen Hawking...every fool knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read all his books.... Is that an informational thing that I shouldn't have posted? Oh well!
> 
> Hasn't he been flip flopping on a lot of his theories lately?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


I learn a lot of Torah and so have developed an insanely bizarre view of reality.
Hawking, in his efforts to remain relevant, changes his theories every few years and presumes no one really knows what the heck he's talking about anyway.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Did I forget to mention at the beginning of this thread that the major I was studying for in college, Iowa State to be specific, was physics until the money ran out. Of course when your major is in a field of science they also require a lot of liberal arts courses, like philosophy, to 'teach you morals and ethics' so you don't blow up the world or something.

******CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Indeependent

Damaged Eagle said:


> Did I forget to mention that the major I was studying for in college, Iowa State to be specific, was physics until the money ran out.
> 
> ******CHUCKLE*****


Everyone needs a good physic now and then.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Anyway... When it comes to the science and the scientific method I think...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## sealybobo

T


Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Powerful enough to create (kick start) a universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is most likely that nothing "kick started" the universe.  The Universe just ... is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And always has been and always will be.  Will our sun be forever?  No.  Will the milky way last forever?  No.  Will our universe that we see last forever?  No.  One day every light will fade.  We guestimate we have about another 10 billion years.  So what will happen after the last star burns out?  It will be complete darkness.  And all the rock from every star will drift around for a few billion years until who knows?  Maybe another universe will form after all the rocks join together and condense into something the size of your fist.  Then explode into a big bang and then in 13 billion years from that date, some life on some planet in the new universe will think they are special and a god created it all for them.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "after".   Time is only one more dimension in the Space-Time continuum.
> 
> Asking "what happens after?" is like asking "What is North of the North Pole?"
> 
> But my point is that most scientists tend to believe that there are multiple space-time continua.   Ours, the one that started with the Big Bang, is just one of an infinite number.  So, bottom line, there is no "need" for anything to "kick-start" the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See one of those small dots?  That's us.  And I don't mean our planet I mean our universe.  Each bubble is a universe.  But now there are infinite universes and dark space in between each of them.  ENDLESS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68708
> 
> You have quantifiable proof of this or is this simply more scientific theology?
> 
> What happens if your proven wrong?
> 
> Oh! You just redefine the goal posts.
> 
> Weren't you accusing those who have religious beliefs of that earlier?
> 
> You still haven't shown proof of what caused the big bang to happen and I'm still going with a miracle occurred.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

The answer is in the video you posted. Listen to it. A little after two minutes into the video.


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt about the quality of catholic schools. But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime. Parents don't have enough knowledge and are not able to be the teachers of their own children on many reasons  - and it's much more fun for children to go to school and to have contact to other children there. But take Pope Benedict XVI. as an example. What was wrong with the schools he visited? He discussed even with the best atheistic philosophers and wan. I read for exampel once also a very interesting article about his knowldege of the Laltin language. He was one of the best living users of the Latin language. Lots of Clerics are only translatuing their thoughts into the Latin language - but he was able to use the structure of of the Latin language as if it would had been his mothertongue - although German is not a language with big latin roots like other languages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime."
> 
> That pretty much identifies you as a fool.
> 
> *The Results*
> 
> Overall the study showed significant advances in homeschool academic achievement as well as revealing that issues such as student gender, parents’ education level, and family income had little bearing on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *National Average Percentile Scores*
> 
> *Subtest*
> 
> *Homeschool*
> 
> *Public School*
> 
> Reading
> 
> 89
> 
> 50
> 
> Language
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Math
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Science
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> Social Studies
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Corea
> 
> 88
> 
> 50
> 
> Compositeb
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
> b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.
> 
> 
> Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *$34,999 or less*—85th percentile
> *$35,000–$49,999*—86th percentile
> *$50,000–$69,999*—86th percentile
> *$70,000 or more*—89th percentile
> 
> The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.
> 
> *Neither parent has a college degree*—83rd percentile
> *One parent has a college degree*—86th percentile
> *Both parents have a college degree*—90th percentile
> 
> Whether either parent was a certified teacher did not matter.
> 
> *Certified (i.e., either parent ever certified)*—87th percentile
> *Not certified (i.e., neither parent ever certified)*—88th percentile
> 
> Parental spending on home education made little difference.
> 
> *Spent $600 or more on the student*—89th percentile
> *Spent under $600 on the student*—86th percentile
> 
> The extent of government regulation on homeschoolers did not affect the results.
> 
> *Low state regulation*—87th percentile
> *Medium state regulation*—88th percentile
> *High state regulation*—87th percentile
> HSLDA: New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The school system of the USA is for me personally not very interesting. I would not know what to do with knowledge about. Let me give you this thought of one of my teachers. He said once: "_Let us be honest. Even the worst school system is not able to inhibit a talented student to learn something_".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it seems that you have retreated from this absurd comment..".But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime.'
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime. But I don't not know what's in this case the best for the USA - and even if I would know it this would be nearly unimportant because I'm not a citizen of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime."
> As this is in the face of easily obtainable evidence, you remain a fool.
Click to expand...


To call someone "fool" has as less to do with the christian religion as "home schooling" has something to do with the christian religion. As far as I know grew around the monasteries the first schools for everyone. Believe it or not: home schooling is per se a paradox. I'm for example a stranger - from my point of view a kind of journeyman. I'm always  learning - that's my way.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The fact is we don't know. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know god is not existing?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So unwilling it is. Every time you post a video to me I say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> So by posting a video you are asking me to say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> Go ahead, post another video. I know you like hearing fuck your God in the ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about íf I would be an ET with a big red button? Or more worse: I could be an ancient germanic warrior with a tomahawk drone. So what about an answer? Do you say normally "There is no god" or do you say normally "I don't believe in [the existance of] god".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you're either being stupid or a dick posting those video's.  What is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


Hmm ... What's wrong with me? ... Better to ask: What's wrong around me? ... I'm asking for example questions and one of your answers here is: "_You are a stupid dick_". I guess this means your background is: "_I [have the feeling to] know: 'god is not real' - and everyone who says or asks anything else is my enemy_".


----------



## zaangalewa

OohPooPahDoo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's your reason why you chose this belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And science does not hold the answer to all questions. So your conditional is not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of Newton's three laws does the Big Bang violate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specially the third law - because the big bang is not a reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The third law is not violated. The sum of all forces acting in the Universe is zero and has been since the big bang.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure wether you are right or wrong with your second sentence here - but I guess you said "Because the universe is no force it did not start". So do you say also it is not expanding? The so called "big bang" - the universe had once a size of less than an electron and all power or energy of all forces and everything else were inside - is the other side of the expansion of the universe: If it expands now it started to expand once. Whatever we can say in physics - the big bang was the first cause for all forces and anything else within our universe. But a first cause is without cause - otherwise it would not be a first cause. So it's impossible that the big bang was a reaction. The big bang was a "re"-action without action before - so it was only an action and not a reaction. Everything started suddenly. Afterwards made it sense to say "actio est reactio". But this law is not able to explain the big bang.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The fact is we don't know. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know god is not existing?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So unwilling it is. Every time you post a video to me I say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> So by posting a video you are asking me to say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> Go ahead, post another video. I know you like hearing fuck your God in the ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about íf I would be an ET with a big red button? Or more worse: I could be an ancient germanic warrior with a tomahawk drone. So what about an answer? Do you say normally "There is no god" or do you say normally "I don't believe in [the existance of] god".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you're either being stupid or a dick posting those video's.  What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm ... What's wrong with me? ... Better to ask: What's wrong around me? ... I'm asking for example questions and one of your answers here is: "_You are a stupid dick_". I guess this means your background is: "_I [have the feeling to] know: 'god is not real' - and everyone who says or asks anything else is my enemy_".
Click to expand...

No, it's just the annoying videos. Why don't you stop posting them. Makes you seem weird


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the same íf someone uses the word "negroe"?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad I'll never watch one video
Click to expand...


So you don't know what you miss and you never will feel the yearning of Nils in Scandinavia for one of the best sides of your country.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know god is not existing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So unwilling it is. Every time you post a video to me I say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> So by posting a video you are asking me to say fuck your God in the ass.
> 
> Go ahead, post another video. I know you like hearing fuck your God in the ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about íf I would be an ET with a big red button? Or more worse: I could be an ancient germanic warrior with a tomahawk drone. So what about an answer? Do you say normally "There is no god" or do you say normally "I don't believe in [the existance of] god".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you're either being stupid or a dick posting those video's.  What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm ... What's wrong with me? ... Better to ask: What's wrong around me? ... I'm asking for example questions and one of your answers here is: "_You are a stupid dick_". I guess this means your background is: "_I [have the feeling to] know: 'god is not real' - and everyone who says or asks anything else is my enemy_".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's just the annoying videos. Why don't you stop posting them. Makes you seem weird
Click to expand...


So you seem not to be able to give an answer, because I am I and not this what you would prefer what I should be.


----------



## defcon4

zaangalewa said:


> So you seem not to be able to give an answer, because I am I and not this what you would prefer what I should be.


You forgot the video...you know, to make Sealybobo happy....


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the same íf someone uses the word "negroe"?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad I'll never watch one video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know what you miss and you never will feel the yearning of Nils in Scandinavia for one of the best sides of your country.
Click to expand...

Don't even understand


----------



## sealybobo

defcon4 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you seem not to be able to give an answer, because I am I and not this what you would prefer what I should be.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the video...you know, to make Sealybobo happy....
Click to expand...

There's a video in his reply. It's like he's speaking in tongues

This is the best argument for God. Say a bunch of stupid shit, ask a bunch of stupid questions, make no sense, post a bunch of stupid videos which BTW sort of expose that the guy is too emotional to think rationally or logically.

It's why they play sad music during movies. Helps set the mood. Even I got emotional when Celine Deon sang in Titanic.

So I'm talking with my brain and he's talking from the heart.


----------



## sealybobo

defcon4 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you seem not to be able to give an answer, because I am I and not this what you would prefer what I should be.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the video...you know, to make Sealybobo happy....
Click to expand...

Did you know at one time in human history people thought thinking came from the heart not the brain?

Then one day a Catholic King ripped out someone's heart and realized the still living person could still see and think. At least for a few seconds. Mess with the brain and lights out


----------



## defcon4

sealybobo said:


> Did you know at one time in human history people thought thinking came from the heart not the brain?
> 
> Then one day a Catholic King ripped out someone's heart and realized the still living person could still see and think. At least for a few seconds. Mess with the brain and lights out


I guess he took the Scriptures too literally.


----------



## HUGGY

You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.

That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".

This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.

That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.


----------



## PoliticalChic

zaangalewa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime."
> 
> That pretty much identifies you as a fool.
> 
> *The Results*
> 
> Overall the study showed significant advances in homeschool academic achievement as well as revealing that issues such as student gender, parents’ education level, and family income had little bearing on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *National Average Percentile Scores*
> 
> *Subtest*
> 
> *Homeschool*
> 
> *Public School*
> 
> Reading
> 
> 89
> 
> 50
> 
> Language
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Math
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Science
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> Social Studies
> 
> 84
> 
> 50
> 
> Corea
> 
> 88
> 
> 50
> 
> Compositeb
> 
> 86
> 
> 50
> 
> a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
> b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.
> 
> 
> Household income had little impact on the results of homeschooled students.
> 
> *$34,999 or less*—85th percentile
> *$35,000–$49,999*—86th percentile
> *$50,000–$69,999*—86th percentile
> *$70,000 or more*—89th percentile
> 
> The education level of the parents made a noticeable difference, but the homeschooled children of non-college educated parents still scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average.
> 
> *Neither parent has a college degree*—83rd percentile
> *One parent has a college degree*—86th percentile
> *Both parents have a college degree*—90th percentile
> 
> Whether either parent was a certified teacher did not matter.
> 
> *Certified (i.e., either parent ever certified)*—87th percentile
> *Not certified (i.e., neither parent ever certified)*—88th percentile
> 
> Parental spending on home education made little difference.
> 
> *Spent $600 or more on the student*—89th percentile
> *Spent under $600 on the student*—86th percentile
> 
> The extent of government regulation on homeschoolers did not affect the results.
> 
> *Low state regulation*—87th percentile
> *Medium state regulation*—88th percentile
> *High state regulation*—87th percentile
> HSLDA: New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The school system of the USA is for me personally not very interesting. I would not know what to do with knowledge about. Let me give you this thought of one of my teachers. He said once: "_Let us be honest. Even the worst school system is not able to inhibit a talented student to learn something_".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it seems that you have retreated from this absurd comment..".But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime.'
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime. But I don't not know what's in this case the best for the USA - and even if I would know it this would be nearly unimportant because I'm not a citizen of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime."
> As this is in the face of easily obtainable evidence, you remain a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To call someone "fool" has as less to do with the christian religion as "home schooling" has something to do with the christian religion. As far as I know grew around the monasteries the first schools for everyone. Believe it or not: home schooling is per se a paradox. I'm for example a stranger - from my point of view a kind of journeyman. I'm always  learning - that's my way.
Click to expand...




Here's the problem.....I provided data proving that home schooled students do better than government schooled kids....yet you continued with a clearly incorrect statement.


Now....no matter what you post....this applies:

"The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."'


----------



## Mudda

Damaged Eagle said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68665
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is all around you.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing, got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.


----------



## zaangalewa

PoliticalChic said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The school system of the USA is for me personally not very interesting. I would not know what to do with knowledge about. Let me give you this thought of one of my teachers. He said once: "_Let us be honest. Even the worst school system is not able to inhibit a talented student to learn something_".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it seems that you have retreated from this absurd comment..".But "home schooling" is in my view nearly a crime.'
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime. But I don't not know what's in this case the best for the USA - and even if I would know it this would be nearly unimportant because I'm not a citizen of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Still home schooling is in my eyes nearly a crime."
> As this is in the face of easily obtainable evidence, you remain a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To call someone "fool" has as less to do with the christian religion as "home schooling" has something to do with the christian religion. As far as I know grew around the monasteries the first schools for everyone. Believe it or not: home schooling is per se a paradox. I'm for example a stranger - from my point of view a kind of journeyman. I'm always  learning - that's my way.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem.....I provided data proving that home schooled students do better than government schooled kids....yet you continued with a clearly incorrect statement.
Click to expand...


"Aha" ... better to say "Antiaha".



> Now....no matter what you post....this applies:
> 
> "The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."'



13 is a Fibonacci number and 13 o'clock is a completly normal time here in my european country, what everyone should know who tries to know something about what's going on all over the world. 13 o'clock is one hour after 12 o'clock here. Our day has 24 hours so we could start to be astonished at 25 o'clock. 25 is by the way a square number ... of a disappearing square - because it's the end of the witching hour too.


----------



## zaangalewa

defcon4 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you seem not to be able to give an answer, because I am I and not this what you would prefer what I should be.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the video...you know, to make Sealybobo happy....
Click to expand...


I am slow - I need some time for a step, that's all.


----------



## the_human_being

HUGGY said:


> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.



Have you actually read what you are posting here?  "Some unknown force".  "So called "ball".  "At some point".  "A certain point".  Are you claiming that your post actually has anything at all to do with SCIENCE?


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's logical proof or rationalism.
> 
> Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.
> 
> It's not I that do not have a clue.  You'll understand one day.
> 
> To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.
> 
> You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?
Click to expand...


What do you mean when you take a step back and look at the facts?  There is more evidence that God exists.  It helps to have a little faith.

And how can you say someone who has lasted all these years suggests ignorance?  Science, while it eventually comes to the truth, is mostly wrong.  Science ends up backing the Bible.  What other ignorance are you referring to besides science?

And who is lying to you?  Descartes?  Surely, his, "I think, therefore I am" has stood the test of time.  His proof of God lies in striving for perfection.  That means getting 100% correct on the test.  Winning.  Doing your best since we're not perfect.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the same íf someone uses the word "negroe"?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad I'll never watch one video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know what you miss and you never will feel the yearning of Nils in Scandinavia for one of the best sides of your country.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't even understand
Click to expand...


So many words for nothing. This situation now remembers me to some people who stood on a bridge while a big wave of water came down the mountains. They filmed and discussed about while others tried to warn them from the distance.  When they started to run it was to late.


----------



## james bond

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't really know wat you mean by your statement that if theirs no god there are no atheists. Seems like a semantics question to me. I think it's simply God exists or he doesn't. Anyways if you think you can make an argument for god existing by all means, make your case. I've been making mine so I'dd like to see you make yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's logical proof or rationalism.
> 
> Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.
> 
> It's not I that do not have a clue.  You'll understand one day.
> 
> To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So basically, you have nothing to back up all that malarkey. Got it.
Click to expand...


Not if I get the last laugh.  I think we all admire perfection.  We love to ace the exam.  Win the championship.  Marry the perfect woman.  Strive to be a success.

Plenty more evidence such as Kalam's Cosmological Argument.

Or why one may not attain perfection as some things are predestined.


----------



## zaangalewa

HUGGY said:


> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.



Sorry - but what do you call "ball"? The universe has not a before and not an outside. It had started to expand about 13.82 billion yeras ago, where it had less the size of an electron. Now it has a size of about 78 lightyears - ah sorry: 78 billion lightyears. Where, when and what was this "ball"?


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.


Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.  

Or God did it.  

Which answer is simple yet stupid and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.  

But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be the opposite of people saying if there is a God, then why doesn't he prove it?  I don't know.  If everyone knew God existed, then there wouldn't be any atheists.  He would be understood.  In this life, there's God and atheists (or the belief in God and the belief in no God).  That's just the way it is.
> 
> As for those looking for proof, the answer is He already did.  Jesus came to Earth and died for everyone's sins.  He performed miracles while he was here.  He was supposedly perfect and a role model.  They just made another movie about him recently called Risen.
> 
> Another argument for God goes like this from Descartes.  I think, therefore I am.  In other words, this life I am living is not a dream like in the matrix.  If it is a dream, then I could doubt my existence.  However, things happen that disprove my doubt.
> 
> So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful.
> 2.  I have a clear and distinct idea of a perfect being, i.e. God.  He does not make mistakes.  He gets angry, but doesn't get carried away.  He does what he is supposed to do.  We all have things in this world we marvel at in their simplicity, elegance, complexity or beauty.  We think there is some being perfect as that realization.
> 3.  So I compare myself to this being who is perfect, and I conclude I am less that Him.
> 4.  Thus, there has to exist a perfect being from whom my innate idea of a perfect being derives.  I could have doubted his existence, but I find evidence to contradict them.  There is perfection.
> 
> The second proof of God goes as follows:
> 1.  Who keeps me having faith in this perfect being's existence?  If it was just me, then I would have made myself perfect.
> 2.  Sadly, I am still not perfect.
> 3.  My parents, are not perfect either.  They have their faults, too.  They could not be God or else they would have created me perfect.
> 4.  Thus, God must exist because we all admire perfection and I, too, would like to be perfect and thus God constantly moves me towards this state.
> 
> On the other hand, atheists have doubts about perfection.  While they admire it too, there has to be some physical evidence or else they do not think any being is perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's logical proof or rationalism.
> 
> Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.
> 
> It's not I that do not have a clue.  You'll understand one day.
> 
> To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.
> 
> You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean when you take a step back and look at the facts?  There is more evidence that God exists.  It helps to have a little faith.
> 
> And how can you say someone who has lasted all these years suggests ignorance?  Science, while it eventually comes to the truth, is mostly wrong.  Science ends up backing the Bible.  What other ignorance are you referring to besides science?
> 
> And who is lying to you?  Descartes?  Surely, his, "I think, therefore I am" has stood the test of time.  His proof of God lies in striving for perfection.  That means getting 100% correct on the test.  Winning.  Doing your best since we're not perfect.
Click to expand...

There is more evidence that God exists. FALSE
It helps to have a little faith. TRUE
Science is mostly wrong FALSE
Science ends up backing the bible FALSE
The rest is just nonsense.  Zero extra credit for that last part.

So you got 1 out of 4 wrong.  You didn't get even close to 100% on the test.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... For instance try talking to many blacks about racism and say the word "ni**er".  They feel so strongly about that word that their brain completely shuts down and the discussion is over. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the same íf someone uses the word "negroe"?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad I'll never watch one video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know what you miss and you never will feel the yearning of Nils in Scandinavia for one of the best sides of your country.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't even understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many words for nothing. This situation now remembers me to some people who stood on a bridge while a big wave of water came down the mountains. They filmed and discussed about while others tried to warn them from the distance.  When they started to run it was to late.
Click to expand...

Of course if you believe you are right you would think that.  But you're insane so...


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


Do “The Newton” with Big Fig


----------



## sealybobo

there4eyeM said:


> That there could be some presence in the universe humans could call 'spirit' is another possible metaphor. I have to admit I 'sense' 'something', but I truly hesitate to express much about it as I know I can't explain it.


Watch Neil DeGrasse Tyson Explain the History of the Universe in 8 Minutes


----------



## sealybobo

For the longest part of human existence, say the last 40,000 generations, we were wanderers, living in small bands of hunters and gatherers, making tools, controlling fire, naming things, all within the last hour of the Cosmic Calendar.

We're so very young on the time scale of the universe that we didn't start painting our first pictures until the last 60 seconds of the cosmic year, a mere 30,000 years ago.
This is when we invented astronomy.

And then, around 10,000 years ago, there began a revolution in the way we lived.
Our ancestors learned how to shape their environment, taming wild plants and animals, cultivating land and settling down.
This changed everything.
For the first time in our history, we had more stuff than we could carry.
We needed a way to keep track of it.
At 14 seconds to midnight, or about 6,000 years ago, we invented writing.
And it wasn't long before we started recording more than bushels of grain.
Writing allowed us to save our thoughts and send them much further in space and time.
Tiny markings on a clay tablet became a means for us to vanquish mortality.
It shook the world.
Moses was born seven seconds ago.
Buddha, six seconds ago.
Jesus, five seconds ago.
Mohammed, three seconds ago.
It was not even two seconds ago that, for better or worse, the two halves of the Earth discovered each other.
And it was only in the very last second of the Cosmic Calendar that we began to use science to reveal nature's secrets and her laws.
The scientific method is so powerful that in a mere four centuries, it has taken us from Galileo's first look through a telescope at another world to leaving our footprints on the Moon.
It allowed us to look out across space and time to discover where and when we are in the cosmos.
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
Carl Sagan guided the maiden voyage of Cosmos a generation ago.
He was the most successful science communicator of the 20th century, but he was first and foremost a scientist.
Carl contributed enormously to our knowledge of the planets.
He correctly predicted the existence of methane lakes on Saturn's giant moon Titan.
He showed that the atmosphere of the early Earth must have contained powerful greenhouse gases.
He was the first to understand that seasonal changes on Mars were due to windblown dust.
Carl was a pioneer in the search for extraterrestrial life and intelligence.
He played a leading role in every major spacecraft mission to explore the solar system during the first 40 years of the Space Age.


----------



## sealybobo

In the vast ocean of time that this calendar represents, we humans only evolved within the last hour of the last day of the cosmic year.
11:59 and 46 seconds.
All of recorded history occupies only the last 14 seconds, and every person you've ever heard of lived somewhere in there.
All those kings and battles, migrations and inventions, wars and loves, everything in the history books happened here, in the last seconds of the Cosmic Calendar.
But if we want to explore such a brief moment of cosmic time we'll have to change scale.
We are newcomers to the cosmos.
Our own story only begins on the last night of the cosmic year.
It's 9:45 on New Year's Eve.
Three and a half million years ago, our ancestors, yours and mine, left these traces.
We stood up, and parted ways from them.
Once we were standing on two feet, our eyes were no longer fixated on the ground.
Now we were free to look up in wonder.


----------



## sealybobo

Fossils show early human species ventured further east than thought






SHARE PICTURE

+8
For the first time, fossils of the the hominid Australopithecus afarensis have been found east of the Rift Valley, showing the species travelled further than we thought . A sculptor's rendering of the species, displayed as part of an exhibition that includes the 3.2 million year old fossilised remains of 'Lucy', is pictured



Read more: Fossils show early human species ventured further east than thought 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> T
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is most likely that nothing "kick started" the universe.  The Universe just ... is...
> 
> 
> 
> And always has been and always will be.  Will our sun be forever?  No.  Will the milky way last forever?  No.  Will our universe that we see last forever?  No.  One day every light will fade.  We guestimate we have about another 10 billion years.  So what will happen after the last star burns out?  It will be complete darkness.  And all the rock from every star will drift around for a few billion years until who knows?  Maybe another universe will form after all the rocks join together and condense into something the size of your fist.  Then explode into a big bang and then in 13 billion years from that date, some life on some planet in the new universe will think they are special and a god created it all for them.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "after".   Time is only one more dimension in the Space-Time continuum.
> 
> Asking "what happens after?" is like asking "What is North of the North Pole?"
> 
> But my point is that most scientists tend to believe that there are multiple space-time continua.   Ours, the one that started with the Big Bang, is just one of an infinite number.  So, bottom line, there is no "need" for anything to "kick-start" the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See one of those small dots?  That's us.  And I don't mean our planet I mean our universe.  Each bubble is a universe.  But now there are infinite universes and dark space in between each of them.  ENDLESS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68708
> 
> You have quantifiable proof of this or is this simply more scientific theology?
> 
> What happens if your proven wrong?
> 
> Oh! You just redefine the goal posts.
> 
> Weren't you accusing those who have religious beliefs of that earlier?
> 
> You still haven't shown proof of what caused the big bang to happen and I'm still going with a miracle occurred.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer is in the video you posted. Listen to it. A little after two minutes into the video.
Click to expand...







Which answer would that be?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

HUGGY said:


> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.



You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?



HUGGY said:


> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.








Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mudda said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68665
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is all around you.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing, got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.
Click to expand...







Do you know what my beliefs about God are?

If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.




So now you're saying that not only space but time existed prior to the big bang?

Are we resetting our goal points again?



sealybobo said:


> Or God did it.



God did. 



sealybobo said:


> Which answer is simple yet stupid and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.



I sense God and his/her wondrous works every day of my life.

All you have is a scientific creation theology, and from appearances you don't even know what it says, that you base your beliefs on.

Which of us has more proof of our beliefs?



sealybobo said:


> Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.



Our ancient ancestors also believed that 1+1=2.

Were they wrong about that also?



sealybobo said:


> And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.



Where and when have I ever stated that I belong to any of those religions?






I'll suggest again that you go back and read this thread starting at the beginning.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68665
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is all around you.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing, got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what my beliefs about God are?
> 
> If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...




Scientific Creationism is actually the invention of fundie Christians.

Scientific Creationism and Error

Thats the pattern, of course. As a rebuttal to components of science, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their _*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_ that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the predictions made by the _General Theory of Supernatural Creation _and then supply some testable evidence to confirm or falsify those predictions and show specific circumstances of how, not just _any_ god(s), but a _unique_ trinity of god(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

All beliefs are _not_ equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs. There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards, i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.

ID'iot Creationism.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68665
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is all around you.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have nothing, got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what my beliefs about God are?
> 
> If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Creationism is actually the invention of fundie Christians.
> 
> Scientific Creationism and Error
> 
> Thats the pattern, of course. As a rebuttal to components of science, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their _*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_ that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the predictions made by the _General Theory of Supernatural Creation _and then supply some testable evidence to confirm or falsify those predictions and show specific circumstances of how, not just _any_ god(s), but a _unique_ trinity of god(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> All beliefs are _not_ equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs. There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards, i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.
> 
> ID'iot Creationism.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...






And this little dissertation of yours has to do with what the two of us are discussing is what way?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have nothing, got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what my beliefs about God are?
> 
> If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific Creationism is actually the invention of fundie Christians.
> 
> Scientific Creationism and Error
> 
> Thats the pattern, of course. As a rebuttal to components of science, (biology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, etc.), I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their _*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_ that would confound evolutionary data and life sciences. Why not something along the lines of the predictions made by the _General Theory of Supernatural Creation _and then supply some testable evidence to confirm or falsify those predictions and show specific circumstances of how, not just _any_ god(s), but a _unique_ trinity of god(s) can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> All beliefs are _not_ equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs. There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards, i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.
> 
> ID'iot Creationism.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68826
> 
> And this little dissertation of yours has to do with what the two of us are discussing is what way?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

Everything. You were the one who used "scientific creation" as a means to villify science. I merely identified that it is religious fundamentalists who coined that term. You need to separate your views from the YEC'ist groupies. Your views are not just similar to the Flat Earth crowd, they are _identical_.

So, when can we expect your _*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_? Remember, it's only rational that we hold your theory to the same standards that science is held to. We'll need you to present your evidence for the gods with, oh, I don't know, maybe an article submitted to the journal _Nature _for peer review.




*****CHUCKLE******


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Everything. You were the one who used "scientific creation" as a means to villify science.



While you, and others of your ilk, attempt to vilify any beliefs other than your own as you worship at your scientific alter of empirical evidence over a creation theology that you can't produce quantifiable proof for examination.

Are you denying that the big bang is a creation theology... I mean theory that you follow?



Hollie said:


> I merely identified that it is religious fundamentalists who coined that term. You need to separate your views from the YEC'ist groupies.



My views are quite separate from theirs.



Hollie said:


> Your views are not just similar to the Flat Earth crowd, they are _identical_.



You don't even know what my beliefs are.

So who's the one vilifying other peoples beliefs here?



Hollie said:


> So, when can we expect your _*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_? Remember, it's only rational that we hold your theory to the same standards that science is held to. We'll need you to present your evidence for the gods with, oh, I don't know, maybe an article submitted to the journal _Nature _for peer review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******







As I see it my saying what caused the big bang was a miracle has more meaning than your answer of 'I don't know'.

Still haven't went back and read this thread from the beginning have you.

Are you going to use the rack on me or the cushy pillow?

*****CHUCKLE******




OR

Is this the point where entropy sets and prior to a colossal bang of an event?


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything. You were the one who used "scientific creation" as a means to villify science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you, and others of your ilk, attempt to vilify any beliefs other than your own as you worship at your scientific alter of empirical evidence over a creation theology that you can't produce quantifiable proof for examination.
> 
> Are you denying that the big bang is a creation theology... I mean theory that you follow?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely identified that it is religious fundamentalists who coined that term. You need to separate your views from the YEC'ist groupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My views are quite separate from theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your views are not just similar to the Flat Earth crowd, they are _identical_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't even know what my beliefs are.
> 
> So who's the one vilifying other peoples beliefs here?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when can we expect your _*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_? Remember, it's only rational that we hold your theory to the same standards that science is held to. We'll need you to present your evidence for the gods with, oh, I don't know, maybe an article submitted to the journal _Nature _for peer review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68835
> 
> As I see it my saying what caused the big bang was a miracle has more meaning than your answer of 'I don't know'.
> 
> Still haven't went back and read this thread from the beginning have you.
> 
> Are you going to use the rack on me or the cushy pillow?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OR
> 
> Is this the point where entropy sets and prior to a colossal bang of an event?
Click to expand...


I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries. 

The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even _understandable_. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims. 

And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”

My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your _a priori_ religious commitment.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries.
> 
> The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even _understandable_. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.
> 
> The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims.
> 
> And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”
> 
> My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your _a priori_ religious commitment.







In the end all you have are theories which may or may not be true. The faith you place your theology is no better than the people you criticize and vilify by suggesting they believe in unicorns and fairies as you and others have in this post and countless others on this forum. Yet in turn many people of your ilk blindly say you follow the teachings of science while not even studying the teachings of said scientific faith. Your, and others of your ilk, lack of respect for other beliefs belittles the name of science and what is stands for as you crusade against other beliefs. I know this to be true because it's obvious you don't even know what beliefs are as you accuse me of 'waving a magic wand' as you attempt to make me a sacrificial offering on your alter of empirical scientific truth.

Unfortunately for you I'm well studied in the arts of science and if you'd have bothered to take the suggestion I've handed out to many of your fellow crusaders you'd find out that your sword is broken and my belief in God stands firm.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries.
> 
> The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even _understandable_. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.
> 
> The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims.
> 
> And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”
> 
> My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your _a priori_ religious commitment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68851
> 
> In the end all you have are theories which may or may not be true. The faith you place your theology is no better than the people you criticize and vilify by suggesting they believe in unicorns and fairies as you and others have in this post and countless others on this forum. Yet in turn many people of your ilk blindly say you follow the teachings of science while not even studying the teachings of said scientific faith. Your, and others of your ilk, lack of respect for other beliefs belittles the name of science and what is stands for as you crusade against other beliefs. I know this to be true because it's obvious you don't even know what beliefs are as you accuse me of 'waving a magic wand' as you attempt to make me a sacrificial offering on your alter of empirical scientific truth.
> 
> Unfortunately for you I'm well studied in the arts of science and if you'd have bothered to take the suggestion I've handed out to many of your fellow crusaders you'd find out that your sword is broken and my belief in God stands firm.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


There's no reason to lash out. In your need to vilify science, I simply required you to offer a competing theory for the gods. The fact is, while it may offend your religious sensibilities, the personal beliefs of religionists regarding the physical sciences is not at issue. It’s the strength of the theory and the volume of evidence that religious extremists take issue with. The methods of science have only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. It's remarkable to see the time and effort ID'iot creationists spend attacking science and investigation as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gods and supernaturalism. 

Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events _de jour_ are in conflict with every known process of nature. 

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist religionists) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself. 

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other. 

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries.
> 
> The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even _understandable_. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.
> 
> The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims.
> 
> And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”
> 
> My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your _a priori_ religious commitment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68851
> 
> In the end all you have are theories which may or may not be true. The faith you place your theology is no better than the people you criticize and vilify by suggesting they believe in unicorns and fairies as you and others have in this post and countless others on this forum. Yet in turn many people of your ilk blindly say you follow the teachings of science while not even studying the teachings of said scientific faith. Your, and others of your ilk, lack of respect for other beliefs belittles the name of science and what is stands for as you crusade against other beliefs. I know this to be true because it's obvious you don't even know what beliefs are as you accuse me of 'waving a magic wand' as you attempt to make me a sacrificial offering on your alter of empirical scientific truth.
> 
> Unfortunately for you I'm well studied in the arts of science and if you'd have bothered to take the suggestion I've handed out to many of your fellow crusaders you'd find out that your sword is broken and my belief in God stands firm.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason to lash out. In your need to vilify science, I simply required you to offer a competing theory for the gods. The fact is, while it may offend your religious sensibilities, the personal beliefs of religionists regarding the physical sciences is not at issue. It’s the strength of the theory and the volume of evidence that religious extremists take issue with. The methods of science have only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. It's remarkable to see the time and effort ID'iot creationists spend attacking science and investigation as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gods and supernaturalism.
> 
> Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events _de jour_ are in conflict with every known process of nature.
> 
> There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist religionists) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.
> 
> There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.
> 
> But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.
Click to expand...






Your biggest mistake is thinking I don't respect science and the scientific method.

I'd suggest that you should reevaluate what's being put forth here and determine what or who is being put under attack by myself.

However I don't put much faith in your current abilities to accomplish that task.

Perhaps if you wield a scientific sword of truth and ride a dragon of empirical evidence your can vanquish your foes banishing them forevermore into a black hole of cosmic entropy.

*****CHUCKLE*****




Don't count on it though.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
Click to expand...


That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.

If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.



> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.



Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.


----------



## HUGGY

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound.  Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom. 

The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.

Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe?  Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical.  For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.

In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place.  There was only absolute darkness.  

There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.  

Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe.  I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.


----------



## HUGGY

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
Click to expand...


The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.


----------



## zaangalewa

HUGGY said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.
Click to expand...


We will see.



> That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.



unravel ... "entwirren" ... my explanations and excuses ... "meine Erklärungen und Entschuldigungen".  ... Needs your hammer some nails? We are selling everything here.


----------



## zaangalewa

HUGGY said:


> ... Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe? ...



You call a singularity "ball"? How unraveling. Take a look at here: Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A singularity is not necessarily the start point of the universe. But the space (with everything in it) started to expand once. This process needs time. "Before" this happened was not time nor space nor energy nor natural laws nor anything else what we are able to say anything about on plausible reasons with methods of mathematics and natural science. We call this nothing "nothing" - although it is a paradox to give a nothing a name as if it would be something and to speak about a nothing as if it would be something, because indeed we would be only able to say nothing about nothing on plausible reasons. What are two nothings? Perhaps existed an uncountable amount of endless numbers of nothings before the universe appeared?

By the way: One reason why so many people think a lot of nonsense is the wrong use of the word "not". "Not a chewing gum" is for example everything what's not a chewing gum. Lots of people today know what a chewing gum is - but no one knows what a "not-chewing-gum" is because this is everything including nothing except a chewing gum. If we say the world is "not a chewing gum" then gives this the illusion to know something about the worlds, but indeed we know only something about a chewing gum in this case.

But what about this idea? Once was a nothing and god took this nothing and made our worlds and heavens out of it? Not? - Okay. This is "only" a belief. If god made it in another way, why not? His decision, not my decision. Tell me when you'll find out how he made it concrete.

Whatever. God is dead. They crucified him. Today you are happy, aren't you?


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.
Click to expand...

I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.

It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.
> 
> It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator
Click to expand...


You are following the normal rules of  propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?


----------



## emilynghiem

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.
> 
> It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are following the normal rules of  propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?
Click to expand...


Dear zaangalewa
After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
who are used to being slammed by the other.

if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.

For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.

It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.


----------



## zaangalewa

emilynghiem said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.
> 
> It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are following the normal rules of  propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear zaangalewa
> After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
> the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
> So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
> Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
> who are used to being slammed by the other.
> 
> if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
> we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.
> 
> For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
> And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.
> 
> It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
> sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
> That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
> that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
> underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.
Click to expand...


I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.
> 
> It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are following the normal rules of  propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Michael moore


----------



## Damaged Eagle

HUGGY said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound.  Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom.
> 
> The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.
> 
> Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe?  Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical.  For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.
> 
> In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place.  There was only absolute darkness.
> 
> There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.
> 
> Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe.  I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.
Click to expand...






So what you're saying is that you have nothing except some scientific theologies, which are most likely wrong, to hold up as a banner of quantitative truth in your scientific crusade of empirical reasoning..... Perhaps you should call upon a nebulous fairy or the galactic unicorn to assist you in your fight for scientific truth as you wave your wand of quantitative analysis. Yet in the end you still have nothing while I and other people who have faith have God and all of Gods works to point to as proof of God's existence. 

*****HAPPY SMILE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.
> 
> It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are following the normal rules of  propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reminds me of Michael moore
Click to expand...


So what?


----------



## emilynghiem

zaangalewa said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.
> 
> It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are following the normal rules of  propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear zaangalewa
> After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
> the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
> So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
> Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
> who are used to being slammed by the other.
> 
> if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
> we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.
> 
> For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
> And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.
> 
> It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
> sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
> That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
> that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
> underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?
Click to expand...


(A) Dear @zanngalewa maybe you are neutral and it doesn't affect you if people identify as theist or nontheist.
But I have friends who do have issues with this, and it gets in the way of solving problems.

The division between Christian and nonchristian has even become politicized as dividing left and right,
rich and poor, to badmouth each other in the media and cost millions in lawsuits, hate campaigns, and lobbying
that could otherwise be invested in agreed solutions if both sides of these conflicts could communicate!

So this is costing us time, money, resources and relationships.

(B) as for Jesus being crucified, if that hadn't happened then all of humanity could not be saved.
It was a necessary sacrifice. What was "not good" was the vicious cycle of sin and suffering
that could not be broken without divine intervention.  

So this is like saying is it bad to have to induce a coma and cut up a patient, and cause
the patient months of painful recovery, in order to conduct the operation to save the patient's heart?

In the case of Jesus dying and being resurrected, the point is to break the cycle
of sin and suffering permanently so we never have to go through that again.
the harmony between God and man, God's will and laws and man's are reconciled.

so that part is GOOD that the lasting benefits outweigh the pain suffering
and sacrifice it took to establish that.

In the process, it is tragic and causes suffering for each of the individual
steps and stages to happen.

Humanity goes through cycles of grief from denial and projection,
to numbness and anger, before arriving at a higher state of spiritual peace.

The journey itself is a good thing, but some of the painful fearful
things that have to take place along the way are regrettable and not ideally what we want to happen in the longrun.

(C) the main key factor in the Bible and Christianity
is the transforming power and grace of FORGIVENESS
to heal hearts and minds, the physical body and personal relationships and humanity collectively.

By restoring faith in love, of truth justice and peace, then we can receive these blessings
that God/Life offers for the taking. So the whole process of humanity is to learn from
and forgive the past so we can build a society and life of harmony we really are designed for anyway.

The point is to restore the natural harmony and balance that was lost,
and all the "bad things" along the way are part of learning from experience and consequences
so we understand the difference and can CHOOSE more effective ways by free will reason and conscience.


----------



## emilynghiem

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound.  Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom.
> 
> The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.
> 
> Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe?  Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical.  For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.
> 
> In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place.  There was only absolute darkness.
> 
> There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.
> 
> Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe.  I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68887
> 
> So what you're saying is that you have nothing except some scientific theologies, which are most likely wrong, to hold up as a banner of quantitative truth in your scientific crusade of empirical reasoning..... Perhaps you should call upon a nebulous fairy or the galactic unicorn to assist you in your fight for scientific truth as you wave your wand of quantitative analysis. Yet in the end you still have nothing while I and other people who have faith have God and all of Gods works to point to as proof of God's existence.
> 
> *****HAPPY SMILE*****
Click to expand...


Dear @DamagedEagle

When Spiritual Healing is proven scientifically to work naturally and universally,
then all things can be worked out for the better. Better understanding between science and
religion will be established. And more problems can be solved by applying this knowledge
because it not only heals mind and body of sickness, addiction, abuse and other ills,
but also brings healing to racial, religions and political relations instead of wasting resources fighting wars
and committing crime and violence tied to social ills and poverty/lack of access to resources and help.

I think it will change how we operate in the world, and will help all people and groups achieve their higher goals
by eliminating most of the manmade barriers that otherwise get in the way of progress.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

emilynghiem said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound.  Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom.
> 
> The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.
> 
> Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe?  Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical.  For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.
> 
> In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place.  There was only absolute darkness.
> 
> There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.
> 
> Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe.  I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68887
> 
> So what you're saying is that you have nothing except some scientific theologies, which are most likely wrong, to hold up as a banner of quantitative truth in your scientific crusade of empirical reasoning..... Perhaps you should call upon a nebulous fairy or the galactic unicorn to assist you in your fight for scientific truth as you wave your wand of quantitative analysis. Yet in the end you still have nothing while I and other people who have faith have God and all of Gods works to point to as proof of God's existence.
> 
> *****HAPPY SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear @DamagedEagle
> 
> When Spiritual Healing is proven scientifically to work naturally and universally,
> then all things can be worked out for the better. Better understanding between science and
> religion will be established. And more problems can be solved by applying this knowledge
> because it not only heals mind and body of sickness, addiction, abuse and other ills,
> but also brings healing to racial, religions and political relations instead of wasting resources fighting wars
> and committing crime and violence tied to social ills and poverty/lack of access to resources and help.
> 
> I think it will change how we operate in the world, and will help all people and groups achieve their higher goals
> by eliminating most of the manmade barriers that otherwise get in the way of progress.
Click to expand...






I'm not a Christian Scientist or a faith healer.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're a bit confused about beliefs. I noted your attempt to vilify science as a means to support your belief in supernaturalism. Your use of the term "scientific creationism" is consistent with slogans used by fundamentalist christian creation ministries.
> 
> The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe. What we do not, and as yet cannot see, is the prior state of existence before the Big Bang. This could be a window for one or more gods, not necessarily your partisan gods. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your partisan gods as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone investigate your magical spirit realms? And you should be aware that there is no requirement for theology regarding investigation of the Big Bang. You're free to invoke miracles of the gods as the cause of existence but miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even _understandable_. Science can never confirm the magic of gods. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to magic. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.
> 
> The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called religious claims.
> 
> And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”
> 
> My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based purely on which best fits your _a priori_ religious commitment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68851
> 
> In the end all you have are theories which may or may not be true. The faith you place your theology is no better than the people you criticize and vilify by suggesting they believe in unicorns and fairies as you and others have in this post and countless others on this forum. Yet in turn many people of your ilk blindly say you follow the teachings of science while not even studying the teachings of said scientific faith. Your, and others of your ilk, lack of respect for other beliefs belittles the name of science and what is stands for as you crusade against other beliefs. I know this to be true because it's obvious you don't even know what beliefs are as you accuse me of 'waving a magic wand' as you attempt to make me a sacrificial offering on your alter of empirical scientific truth.
> 
> Unfortunately for you I'm well studied in the arts of science and if you'd have bothered to take the suggestion I've handed out to many of your fellow crusaders you'd find out that your sword is broken and my belief in God stands firm.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no reason to lash out. In your need to vilify science, I simply required you to offer a competing theory for the gods. The fact is, while it may offend your religious sensibilities, the personal beliefs of religionists regarding the physical sciences is not at issue. It’s the strength of the theory and the volume of evidence that religious extremists take issue with. The methods of science have only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. It's remarkable to see the time and effort ID'iot creationists spend attacking science and investigation as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gods and supernaturalism.
> 
> Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events _de jour_ are in conflict with every known process of nature.
> 
> There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist religionists) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.
> 
> There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.
> 
> But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68855
> 
> Your biggest mistake is thinking I don't respect science and the scientific method.
> 
> I'd suggest that you should reevaluate what's being put forth here and determine what or who is being put under attack by myself.
> 
> However I don't put much faith in your current abilities to accomplish that task.
> 
> Perhaps if you wield a scientific sword of truth and ride a dragon of empirical evidence your can vanquish your foes banishing them forevermore into a black hole of cosmic entropy.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't count on it though.
Click to expand...



The issues being addressed here are not philosophical and retreating to "magic" as an answer for anything is futile.The natural world (to exclude your clams to supernatural inventions) are entirely scientific issues. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to supernaturalism.

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect. tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Scientists do not operate on the sort of unquestioning theistic faith that is meant in these kinds of debates. Non-theists, scientists, rely on empirical data, evidence, and assiduous peer-review and falsification (at least good scientists do). This does not mean that fundies do not leap back and forth into and out of faith to suit their arguments-- they do so all the time.


Perhaps if you wrapped your bibles in duct tape (a double wide, so to speak), you could thump your foes into oblivion. 

*****CHUCKLE******


----------



## emilynghiem

Damaged Eagle said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have quantifiable evidence that there was something else that existed prior to this space-time continuum started up?
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your quantifiable proof for this or is just more scientific creationism theology?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From a little less than 400,000 years backward the theories abound.  Many even have this universe a small as the size of a dime or an atom.
> 
> The event asks several foundational questions such as when was this universe "this universe" and not some extension of a previous universe.
> 
> Was the "ball" as I call it or the point of the singularity actually the beginning of this universe?  Some suggest that the stuff of the beginning was an assortment of strings vibrating specific tones within the dense soup of these strings. Some speculate that the shape of the beginning was flat and not spherical.  For my purposes the moment that matter assumed the form of atoms we are familiar with was the actual start of this universe.
> 
> In any case there was no "place" for a god as there was nothing in these four dimensions before this universe took nothing's place.  There was only absolute darkness.
> 
> There are theories that many potential universes attempt to start forming but fail.
> 
> Like I said there are many theories attempting to explain the how, what and where of the start of this universe.  I know of none that seriously attempt to add a god to these equations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68887
> 
> So what you're saying is that you have nothing except some scientific theologies, which are most likely wrong, to hold up as a banner of quantitative truth in your scientific crusade of empirical reasoning..... Perhaps you should call upon a nebulous fairy or the galactic unicorn to assist you in your fight for scientific truth as you wave your wand of quantitative analysis. Yet in the end you still have nothing while I and other people who have faith have God and all of Gods works to point to as proof of God's existence.
> 
> *****HAPPY SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear @DamagedEagle
> 
> When Spiritual Healing is proven scientifically to work naturally and universally,
> then all things can be worked out for the better. Better understanding between science and
> religion will be established. And more problems can be solved by applying this knowledge
> because it not only heals mind and body of sickness, addiction, abuse and other ills,
> but also brings healing to racial, religions and political relations instead of wasting resources fighting wars
> and committing crime and violence tied to social ills and poverty/lack of access to resources and help.
> 
> I think it will change how we operate in the world, and will help all people and groups achieve their higher goals
> by eliminating most of the manmade barriers that otherwise get in the way of progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68892
> 
> I'm not a Christian Scientist or a faith healer.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


1. Faith healing is NOT the same as spiritual healing.
Most people use faith healing to mean the fraudulent religious practice for show or profit.
Real spiritual healers have denounced the false faith healing as dangerous for denying
medicine and trying to blame people if they don't get certain results; so this is conditional and that's why it fails -- it is basing faith on whether people get a certain result or not, where people go around trying to dictate and make things happen, which isn't how the healing process works. The false faith healing doesn't involve people changing or correcting anything on the inside, so why should any symptoms change if they haven't solve the problems blocking the healing?
This is like comparing bad science to real science. Or lazy math errors to the right answers and ways of working through the math.  These are not the same thing, they are the opposite, but the purpose of both of them is to learn by comparison so we can follow the right steps.

The real spiritual healing is free, natural and works alongside science and medicine,
it does not add conditions or require anyone to deny or neglect medical care.. The point is to identify unresolved issues, memories or conflicts that need to be forgiven in order to free up the mind and body to heal themselves naturally instead of being obstructed or infested with negative energy that causes illness. The more we forgive, the more positive healing energy can flow through and help restore healthy mind body and relationships. This is natural cause and effect, that all humans experience regardless of our religious or political affiliations or views.

2. I have atheist and nonchristian friends who have gone through this type of spiritual healing
prayer that is based on FORGIVENESS, and it still works the same way. One of my atheist friends teaches forgiveness and "free grace in life" as just natural psychology, but the impact it has had on him is the equivalent of how Christians and religious people minister to others, teaching from their own experience what works and why.

You do not need to be Christian to learn how to use spiritual healing which is natural.

Just like you don't have to be a scientist to use gravity that follows certain laws of nature.
Those are going to work anyway. It's just a matter of people learning how to work with the natural healing process where it works for us (instead of the laws of science, or gravity, working against us!)

The same laws of gravity that explain why books sit on the shelf instead of flying up
also explain why those same books would slide to the floor if the shelf isn't straight.

Getting the right or wrong results is not the fault of the laws of gravity, but whether we follow and apply them consistently. The same with why spiritual healing succeeds while "faith  healing" fails by making verbal demands without addressing or curing the spiritual causes.

The more we understand how the healing process works, we can troubleshoot it when it fails. And get better results over time, the more we apply and perfect the process.

Anyone can learn because this is consistent with nature and science.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> The issues being addressed here are not philosophical and retreating to "magic" as an answer for anything is futile.The natural world (to exclude your clams to supernatural inventions) are entirely scientific issues. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to supernaturalism.



As I recall you or one of the scientific crusaders said recently that the laws of the natural universe did not apply when the big bang happened.

Where was your natural, ie, rational world that can be discussed, explored, and understood at that time?

*****CHUCKLE*****



Hollie said:


> This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect. tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.



I'm still here.

*****CHUCKLE*****

But then you've never bothered to find out what my beliefs are now have you?

You assume and attack with your scientific sword of truth which I easily deflect with my knowledge of God.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Hollie said:


> Scientists do not operate on the sort of unquestioning theistic faith that is meant in these kinds of debates. Non-theists, scientists, rely on empirical data, evidence, and assiduous peer-review and falsification (at least good scientists do). This does not mean that fundies do not leap back and forth into and out of faith to suit their arguments-- they do so all the time.



Did the scientists ask for scientifically illiterate pawns like you to attack the masses of those who have faith or are you doing this all on your own?



Hollie said:


> Perhaps if you wrapped your bibles in duct tape (a double wide, so to speak), you could thump your foes into oblivion.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******



Which bibles would those be?





So far I haven't had to resort to anything except my knowledge of science and the scientific method to prove my faith in God.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issues being addressed here are not philosophical and retreating to "magic" as an answer for anything is futile.The natural world (to exclude your clams to supernatural inventions) are entirely scientific issues. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall you or one of the scientific crusaders said recently that the laws of the natural universe did not apply when the big bang happened.
> 
> Where was your natural, ie, rational world that can be discussed, explored, and understood at that time?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect. tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still here.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> But then you've never bothered to find out what my beliefs are now have you?
> 
> You assume and attack with your scientific sword of truth which I easily deflect with my knowledge of God.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists do not operate on the sort of unquestioning theistic faith that is meant in these kinds of debates. Non-theists, scientists, rely on empirical data, evidence, and assiduous peer-review and falsification (at least good scientists do). This does not mean that fundies do not leap back and forth into and out of faith to suit their arguments-- they do so all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the scientists ask for scientifically illiterate pawns like you to attack the masses of those who have faith or are you doing this all on your own?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you wrapped your bibles in duct tape (a double wide, so to speak), you could thump your foes into oblivion.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which bibles would those be?
> 
> View attachment 68897
> 
> So far I haven't had to resort to anything except my knowledge of science and the scientific method to prove my faith in God.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no  firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.

Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.

Now would be the appropriate time to post your *General Theory of Supermagical Creation. *

You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?



*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no  firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.



Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?



Hollie said:


> The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.



I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.



Hollie said:


> Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.



Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?

God is and does what God chooses to do.



Hollie said:


> Now would be the appropriate time to post your *General Theory of Supermagical Creation. *
> 
> You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****








Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Mudda

Damaged Eagle said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't even bother showing you any proof of its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68665
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is all around you.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing, got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what my beliefs about God are?
> 
> If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Only queers like Poison.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mudda said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 68665
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is all around you.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have nothing, got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what my beliefs about God are?
> 
> If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only queers like Poison.
Click to expand...






Does this mean you have nothing substantial left to contribute to the discussion?

*****ROFLMAO*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no  firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?
> 
> God is and does what God chooses to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now would be the appropriate time to post your *General Theory of Supermagical Creation. *
> 
> You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


I think gazing at magic crystals is a poor substitute for deriving knowledge.

But still nothing on your _*General Theory of Supermagical Creation*_. That's disappointing as how does one study the gods without a blueprint for their "design"?

Many gods exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature. If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms. 

We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., gods to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.

It seems we need a miracle to allow you to present a coherent argument for your hierarchy of gods. 


*****guffaw*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have nothing, got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what my beliefs about God are?
> 
> If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only queers like Poison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68903
> 
> Does this mean you have nothing substantial left to contribute to the discussion?
> 
> *****ROFLMAO*****
Click to expand...

I'd have to suggest that your posting of pictures depicting people gazing at magic crystals kinda' suggests that your gods inhabit the realm of carnival barkers and tarot card readers.


----------



## zaangalewa

emilynghiem said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.
> 
> It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are following the normal rules of  propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear zaangalewa
> After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
> the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
> So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
> Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
> who are used to being slammed by the other.
> 
> if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
> we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.
> 
> For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
> And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.
> 
> It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
> sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
> That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
> that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
> underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (A) Dear @zanngalewa maybe you are neutral and it doesn't affect you if people identify as theist or nontheist.
> But I have friends who do have issues with this, and it gets in the way of solving problems.
> 
> The division between Christian and nonchristian
Click to expand...


?



> has even become politicized as dividing left and right,



Christians are traditionalists in most cases. Traditions depend on histories and futures not on directions like left or right.



> rich and poor,



?



> to badmouth each other in the media and cost millions in lawsuits, hate campaigns, and lobbying
> that could otherwise be invested in agreed solutions if both sides of these conflicts could communicate!



I'm not a citizen of the USA.



> So this is costing us time, money, resources and relationships.



Who is "us"? US tax payers?



> (B) as for Jesus being crucified, if that hadn't happened



Do you try to tell me now something about my own religion?



> then all of humanity could not be saved.



Humanity could not be saved? It's yours to save your humanity.



> It was a necessary sacrifice. What was "not good" was the vicious cycle of sin and suffering
> that could not be broken without divine intervention.
> 
> So this is like saying is it bad to have to induce a coma and cut up a patient, and cause
> the patient months of painful recovery, in order to conduct the operation to save the patient's heart?
> 
> In the case of Jesus dying and being resurrected, the point is to break the cycle
> of sin and suffering permanently so we never have to go through that again.
> the harmony between God and man, God's will and laws and man's are reconciled.



Lots of strange thoughts for me. I do not know why you try to tell me strange ideas about my own religion.



> so that part is GOOD that the lasting benefits outweigh the pain suffering
> and sacrifice it took to establish that.
> 
> In the process, it is tragic and causes suffering for each of the individual
> steps and stages to happen.
> 
> Humanity goes through cycles of grief from denial and projection,
> to numbness and anger, before arriving at a higher state of spiritual peace.



I'm a Christian - not a humanist. Humanity is for me only a kind of weaker form of Christianity.



> The journey itself is a good thing, but some of the painful fearful
> things that have to take place along the way are regrettable and not ideally what we want to happen in the longrun.



I don't know what you are speaking about now.



> (C) the main key factor in the Bible and Christianity
> is the transforming power and grace of FORGIVENESS



What should I forgive you?



> to heal hearts and minds, the physical body and personal relationships and humanity collectively.



If you like to do so - do it. But why should someone else do so?  Most people are happy if they find the same left and right sock in the morning.



> By restoring faith in love, of truth justice and peace, then we can receive these blessings
> that God/Life offers for the taking..



We receive what god gives us only because god loves us and gives.



> So the whole process of humanity is to learn from
> and forgive the past so we can build a society and life of harmony we really are designed for anyway.
> 
> The point is to restore the natural harmony and balance that was lost,



We lost paradise. And there's an angel with a sword of flames in front of the door.



> and all the "bad things" along the way are part of learning from experience and consequences



It's better to learn from the experiences of others. In this case no one would drink alcohol or use drugs for example.



> so we understand the difference and can CHOOSE more effective ways by free will reason and conscience.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no  firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?
> 
> God is and does what God chooses to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now would be the appropriate time to post your *General Theory of Supermagical Creation. *
> 
> You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think gazing at magic crystals is a poor substitute for deriving knowledge.
> 
> But still nothing on your _*General Theory of Supermagical Creation*_. That's disappointing as how does one study the gods without a blueprint for their "design"?
> 
> Many gods exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature. If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.
> 
> We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., gods to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.
> 
> It seems we need a miracle to allow you to present a coherent argument for your hierarchy of gods.
> 
> 
> *****guffaw*****
Click to expand...







Still haven't went back and read the entire thread eh?

I've only referred to one God.

It's you who have to attempt to put things in place that are not there, as you are attempting to do in this your most current post, as you hold high your banner of quantitative truths and wave your wand of quantitative analysis.  

Does the burden of righteous empirical data weigh heavily on you as it did and does with the global warming crowd as they used their wands of quantitative truths to corrupt data to make their science fit the objectives?

Perhaps the evidence of Gods existence is right before you as you demonize those who believe while pounding on your 'pristine' pulpit of scientific achievement while condemning people who believe in God.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what my beliefs about God are?
> 
> If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only queers like Poison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68903
> 
> Does this mean you have nothing substantial left to contribute to the discussion?
> 
> *****ROFLMAO*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd have to suggest that your posting of pictures depicting people gazing at magic crystals kinda' suggests that your gods inhabit the realm of carnival barkers and tarot card readers.
Click to expand...






You're free to attack those little pictures all you want.

*****ROFLMAO*****




Toro! Toro!


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no  firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?
> 
> God is and does what God chooses to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now would be the appropriate time to post your *General Theory of Supermagical Creation. *
> 
> You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think gazing at magic crystals is a poor substitute for deriving knowledge.
> 
> But still nothing on your _*General Theory of Supermagical Creation*_. That's disappointing as how does one study the gods without a blueprint for their "design"?
> 
> Many gods exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature. If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.
> 
> We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., gods to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.
> 
> It seems we need a miracle to allow you to present a coherent argument for your hierarchy of gods.
> 
> 
> *****guffaw*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't went back and read the entire thread eh?
> 
> I've only referred to one God.
> 
> It's you who have to attempt to put things in place that are not there, as you are attempting to do in this your most current post, as you hold high your banner of quantitative truths and wave your wand of quantitative analysis.
> 
> Does the burden of righteous empirical data weigh heavily on you as it did and does with the global warming crowd as they used their wands of quantitative truths to corrupt data to make their science fit the objectives?
> 
> Perhaps the evidence of Gods existence is right before you as you demonize those who believe while pounding on your 'pristine' pulpit of scientific achievement while condemning people who believe in God.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Yes, you mentioned one of the gods. However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.

I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.

Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..

Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?


Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets



*****SNORT*****


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The double talk you wrap yourself up in is not armour.  When the god is dead, it is dead for all time and never existed.  That truth unravels your explainations and excuses.  It doesn't need to chase you down every rabbit hole you have dug.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.
> 
> It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are following the normal rules of  propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear zaangalewa
> After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
> the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
> So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
> Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
> who are used to being slammed by the other.
> 
> if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
> we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.
> 
> For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
> And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.
> 
> It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
> sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
> That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
> that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
> underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (A) Dear @zanngalewa maybe you are neutral and it doesn't affect you if people identify as theist or nontheist.
> But I have friends who do have issues with this, and it gets in the way of solving problems.
> 
> The division between Christian and nonchristian has even become politicized as dividing left and right,
> rich and poor, to badmouth each other in the media and cost millions in lawsuits, hate campaigns, and lobbying
> that could otherwise be invested in agreed solutions if both sides of these conflicts could communicate!
> 
> So this is costing us time, money, resources and relationships.
> 
> (B) as for Jesus being crucified, if that hadn't happened then all of humanity could not be saved.
> It was a necessary sacrifice. What was "not good" was the vicious cycle of sin and suffering
> that could not be broken without divine intervention.
> 
> So this is like saying is it bad to have to induce a coma and cut up a patient, and cause
> the patient months of painful recovery, in order to conduct the operation to save the patient's heart?
> 
> In the case of Jesus dying and being resurrected, the point is to break the cycle
> of sin and suffering permanently so we never have to go through that again.
> the harmony between God and man, God's will and laws and man's are reconciled.
> 
> so that part is GOOD that the lasting benefits outweigh the pain suffering
> and sacrifice it took to establish that.
> 
> In the process, it is tragic and causes suffering for each of the individual
> steps and stages to happen.
> 
> Humanity goes through cycles of grief from denial and projection,
> to numbness and anger, before arriving at a higher state of spiritual peace.
> 
> The journey itself is a good thing, but some of the painful fearful
> things that have to take place along the way are regrettable and not ideally what we want to happen in the longrun.
> 
> (C) the main key factor in the Bible and Christianity
> is the transforming power and grace of FORGIVENESS
> to heal hearts and minds, the physical body and personal relationships and humanity collectively.
> 
> By restoring faith in love, of truth justice and peace, then we can receive these blessings
> that God/Life offers for the taking. So the whole process of humanity is to learn from
> and forgive the past so we can build a society and life of harmony we really are designed for anyway.
> 
> The point is to restore the natural harmony and balance that was lost,
> and all the "bad things" along the way are part of learning from experience and consequences
> so we understand the difference and can CHOOSE more effective ways by free will reason and conscience.
Click to expand...

That dude is the perfect example of a horrible spokesperson for religion. Purposely does something knowing it's annoying us. 

If that's his attempt to convince or convert.

Maybe those videos are brainwashing videos. Like looking in Medusa's eyes. I won't watch them


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything! My proof of God's existence is all around me.
> 
> What do you have with your scientific creation theology other than being able to say 'I don't know' when asked a simple question?
> 
> I'm still going with a miracle happened.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know either so you make something up. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what my beliefs about God are?
> 
> If not then I'll suggest my answer is more substantial than yours.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only queers like Poison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 68903
> 
> Does this mean you have nothing substantial left to contribute to the discussion?
> 
> *****ROFLMAO*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd have to suggest that your posting of pictures depicting people gazing at magic crystals kinda' suggests that your gods inhabit the realm of carnival barkers and tarot card readers.
Click to expand...

Don't watch those videos those videos are made by his cult and they're brainwashing people who watch enough of them


----------



## defcon4

sealybobo said:


> That dude is the perfect example of a horrible spokesperson for religion. Purposely does something knowing it's annoying us.


They don't annoy me. I like them and I like his *****CHUCKLE*****-ing


sealybobo said:


> If that's his attempt to convince or convert.


He is NOT proselytizing.


sealybobo said:


> Maybe those videos are brainwashing videos. Like looking in Medusa's eyes. I won't watch them


They don't mesmerize me. 


sealybobo said:


> Don't watch those videos those videos are made by his cult and they're brainwashing people who watch enough of them


They are not cult videos.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might be interested to learn that a major disruption in matter and energy is what caused the expansion of the universe. Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, science has no  firm idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!!!! Did you just look that up? You assume I didn't know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious conclusion is that Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the Big Bang...it was a by-product. If you have had any training in physics, you would know the implication of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure with time we will all come to comprehend how and why God works the way God does.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing known to science accounts for magic, supernatural intervention or the hand of your gods (or other, more powerful gods), snapping their eternal digits and magically creating all of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about magic or supernatural intervention except yourself?
> 
> God is and does what God chooses to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now would be the appropriate time to post your *General Theory of Supermagical Creation. *
> 
> You have a workable theory, right? I'm sure the National Science Foundation would be delighted to peer review your data. You have data, right?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure!!!!! It was a miracle and with more scientific analysis and study we will know how God accomplished that miracle someday.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think gazing at magic crystals is a poor substitute for deriving knowledge.
> 
> But still nothing on your _*General Theory of Supermagical Creation*_. That's disappointing as how does one study the gods without a blueprint for their "design"?
> 
> Many gods exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature. If your gods (let's call them 1st order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves, then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.
> 
> We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., gods to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.
> 
> It seems we need a miracle to allow you to present a coherent argument for your hierarchy of gods.
> 
> 
> *****guffaw*****
Click to expand...

Yea sure but then God came for real and talked to Moses then Mary then Mohammad then Joseph Smith. All those gods before weren't real and God came and set the record straight 4 times. 

If you don't believe God talked to Joseph Smith how do you explain Utah? They're all insane? Oh come on.

And what about Mohammad? He clearly spoke to God.

And clearly the Jesus stories are all based on facts too. What's wrong with you?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.



Which god would that be?



Hollie said:


> However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.



So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?



Hollie said:


> I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.
> 
> Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..
> 
> Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?
> 
> 
> Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets
> 
> 
> 
> *****SNORT*****








It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.

Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to re read his post to see if it makes any sense at all and it simply doesn't.
> 
> It looks like the post of a mad man, which would explain believing in an invisible creator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are following the normal rules of  propagada of Commies, Nazis and other mindmanipulating and terrorizing organisations. If they don't have any longer any argument or idea how to justify what's not justifyable, because they are just simple wrong, then they try to kill the reputation of their selfdefined enemies or this persons directly themselves. Whatelse to expect on a day like good friday? But tell me something else: Why do you think is it necessarry that everyone has the same ideas about your not existing pseudogod? And who writes your atheistic fatwas?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear zaangalewa
> After many discussions with sealybobo for the most part sealybobo is just naturally NONTHEISTIC.
> the slight "anti-theist" bias is in reaction to the same bias that theists have projected onto atheists.
> So that problem will take a MUTUAL agreement to heal, between atheists and theists to quit judging each other.
> Until there is a truce called, you will see a bit of bias and edge/defensiveness in people on both sides
> who are used to being slammed by the other.
> 
> if we could take sealybobo out of that context and talk freely,
> we'd likely focus more on the content and meaning of what people say and see going on in the world.
> 
> For all the biases, bickering and "baiting' to stop I assume the world would have to call a truce and agree to coexist in peace.
> And maybe over time, these past issues would heal and people could talk freely without backbiting and bullying each other.
> 
> It just takes time. But from what I've seen so far,
> sealybobo is more concerned with solving the problems not bashing people for them.
> That just happens to come with the territory and the media format of interacting online in a free for all. of course
> that language is going to come out and distract from the real meat of the discussion and points we could actually clarify and agree on
> underneath the terms that different groups use to symbolize certain concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea why you say this to me. It's for me personally completly unimportant what someone believes. Sealbody is able to communicate so he can tell me on his own what he thinks. And I am on my own nothing what I would call "theist". I'm a Catholic - a normal Christian like a huge number of hundreds of millions other Christians. And I don't have any idea what you call "solving problems". I live my life and my life is for no one any problem. And it's for me personally also not important wether someone agrees or disagrees with anything what I say or not - nor would I know what kind of concepts of what kinds of groups had to do anything with anything else what I say to someone or not. Oh by the way: Did you hear that the Romans crucified Jesus today about 2000 years ago? That's not good, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (A) Dear @zanngalewa maybe you are neutral and it doesn't affect you if people identify as theist or nontheist.
> But I have friends who do have issues with this, and it gets in the way of solving problems.
> 
> The division between Christian and nonchristian has even become politicized as dividing left and right,
> rich and poor, to badmouth each other in the media and cost millions in lawsuits, hate campaigns, and lobbying
> that could otherwise be invested in agreed solutions if both sides of these conflicts could communicate!
> 
> So this is costing us time, money, resources and relationships.
> 
> (B) as for Jesus being crucified, if that hadn't happened then all of humanity could not be saved.
> It was a necessary sacrifice. What was "not good" was the vicious cycle of sin and suffering
> that could not be broken without divine intervention.
> 
> So this is like saying is it bad to have to induce a coma and cut up a patient, and cause
> the patient months of painful recovery, in order to conduct the operation to save the patient's heart?
> 
> In the case of Jesus dying and being resurrected, the point is to break the cycle
> of sin and suffering permanently so we never have to go through that again.
> the harmony between God and man, God's will and laws and man's are reconciled.
> 
> so that part is GOOD that the lasting benefits outweigh the pain suffering
> and sacrifice it took to establish that.
> 
> In the process, it is tragic and causes suffering for each of the individual
> steps and stages to happen.
> 
> Humanity goes through cycles of grief from denial and projection,
> to numbness and anger, before arriving at a higher state of spiritual peace.
> 
> The journey itself is a good thing, but some of the painful fearful
> things that have to take place along the way are regrettable and not ideally what we want to happen in the longrun.
> 
> (C) the main key factor in the Bible and Christianity
> is the transforming power and grace of FORGIVENESS
> to heal hearts and minds, the physical body and personal relationships and humanity collectively.
> 
> By restoring faith in love, of truth justice and peace, then we can receive these blessings
> that God/Life offers for the taking. So the whole process of humanity is to learn from
> and forgive the past so we can build a society and life of harmony we really are designed for anyway.
> 
> The point is to restore the natural harmony and balance that was lost,
> and all the "bad things" along the way are part of learning from experience and consequences
> so we understand the difference and can CHOOSE more effective ways by free will reason and conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That dude is the perfect example of a horrible spokesperson for religion. Purposely does something knowing it's annoying us.
> 
> If that's his attempt to convince or convert.
> 
> Maybe those videos are brainwashing videos. Like looking in Medusa's eyes. I won't watch them
Click to expand...


So still you  are not able to say what's your "knowledge" why you don't believe in god. But what happens really if you meet in everyone else always only your own shadow?


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.
> 
> Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..
> 
> Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?
> 
> 
> Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets
> 
> 
> 
> *****SNORT*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.
> 
> Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods. You have been offered the opportunity to present your *General Theory of Supernatural Creation* but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge. That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks


*****SNICKER*****


----------



## defcon4

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.
> 
> Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..
> 
> Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?
> 
> 
> Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets
> 
> 
> 
> *****SNORT*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.
> 
> Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods. You have been offered the opportunity to present your *General Theory of Supernatural Creation* but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.
> 
> Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge. That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.
> 
> We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.
> 
> Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks
> 
> 
> *****SNICKER*****
Click to expand...

So you want to know the truth?
*****SMILE*****


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.
> 
> Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..
> 
> Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?
> 
> 
> Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets
> 
> 
> 
> *****SNORT*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.
> 
> Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Scientists don't talk about God in the lab. Ever.


----------



## sealybobo

defcon4 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.
> 
> Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..
> 
> Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?
> 
> 
> Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets
> 
> 
> 
> *****SNORT*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.
> 
> Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods. You have been offered the opportunity to present your *General Theory of Supernatural Creation* but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.
> 
> Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge. That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.
> 
> We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.
> 
> Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks
> 
> 
> *****SNICKER*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to know the truth?
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

Annoying people for god like your little buddy?


----------



## defcon4

sealybobo said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.
> 
> Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..
> 
> Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?
> 
> 
> Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets
> 
> 
> 
> *****SNORT*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.
> 
> Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods. You have been offered the opportunity to present your *General Theory of Supernatural Creation* but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.
> 
> Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge. That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.
> 
> We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.
> 
> Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks
> 
> 
> *****SNICKER*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to know the truth?
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Annoying people for god like your little buddy?
Click to expand...

That music was for your enjoyment only. See? I am a nice guy after all...


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.
> 
> Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..
> 
> Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?
> 
> 
> Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets
> 
> 
> 
> *****SNORT*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.
> 
> Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists don't talk about God in the lab. Ever.
Click to expand...


When Einstein said "Gott würfelt nicht" (god doesn't throw dices) he said somehow he thinks god is an intelligent being what makes not always superflous decisions and throws dices. His motivation was to take a deeper view how the "old one" made it. He had the imagination there should be a more simple reality behind some laws in physics.

Or take Nils Bohr and lots of the most popular phycicists of all times who discussed about god in Kopenhagen. Only Dirac, no one else - (Dirac had by the way great psychological problems  too) - was absolutelly convinced god is not existing. Nils Bohr said in the end of this discussion with smiling eyes to him: "Now we know: God is not existing and Dirac is his prophet".

Scientists are by the way free men. If they speak about god then they speak about god - so easy is it.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.
> 
> Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..
> 
> Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?
> 
> 
> Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets
> 
> 
> 
> *****SNORT*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.
> 
> Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists don't talk about God in the lab. Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Einstein said "Gott würfelt nicht" (god doesn't throw dices) he said somehow he thinks god is an intelligent being what makes not always superflous decisions and throws dices. His motivation was to take a deeper view how the "old one" made it. He had the imagination there should be a more simple reality behind some laws in physics.
> 
> Or take Nils Bohr and lots of the most popular phycicists of all times who discussed about god in Kopenhagen. Only Dirac, no one else - (Dirac had by the way great psychological problems  too) - was absolutelly convinced god is not existing. Nils Bohr said in the end of this discussion with smiling eyes to him: "Now we know: God is not existing and Dirac is his prophet".
> 
> Scientists are by the way free men. If they speak about god then they speak about god - so easy is it.
Click to expand...

Cavemen speculated about God just like Einstein did and just like you do.

Did Einstein discover God or the theory of relativity?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods.



The only screeching I'm seeing here is coming from you and a few other close minded people with beliefs similar to yourself.



Hollie said:


> You have been offered the opportunity to present your *General Theory of Supernatural Creation* but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.



No. The pattern is to have people, such as yourself, to put things into what other people say while pathetically attempting to insult them.



Hollie said:


> Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on.



Still haven't read the rest of this thread eh?



Hollie said:


> Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.



I observe God and all his/her wondrous works everyday.



Hollie said:


> That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.



Actually the dynamic being displayed here is screaming, hysterical atheist fundies who insist that no evidence has been offered while refusing to read the rest of the thread much less ask me what are my beliefs about God.



Hollie said:


> We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present.



I never said I was a creationist....

However if you want proof of God's existence just look around you.



Hollie said:


> So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.
> 
> Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks
> 
> 
> *****SNICKER*****



Looks to me like you and a few others are the ones really attempting to vilify.






Do you have your analytical inquisition equipment and robes of empirical power all cleaned and prepped so you can interrogate the masses?

*****CHUCKLE******


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say I'm disappointed. We're left with your screeching about the gods but you offer no evidence for these gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only screeching I'm seeing here is coming from you and a few other close minded people with beliefs similar to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been offered the opportunity to present your *General Theory of Supernatural Creation* but refuse to do so. That is unfortunately a pattern of behavior for ID'iot creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The pattern is to have people, such as yourself, to put things into what other people say while pathetically attempting to insult them.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't read the rest of this thread eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exist (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I observe God and all his/her wondrous works everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who insist their partisan are true yet offer no evidence for these gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the dynamic being displayed here is screaming, hysterical atheist fundies who insist that no evidence has been offered while refusing to read the rest of the thread much less ask me what are my beliefs about God.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was a creationist....
> 
> However if you want proof of God's existence just look around you.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.
> 
> Crystal Ball Readings - Crystalinks
> 
> 
> *****SNICKER*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks to me like you and a few others are the ones really attempting to vilify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have your analytical inquisition equipment and robes of empirical power all cleaned and prepped so you can interrogate the masses?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE******
Click to expand...

So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive *General Theory of Supermagical Creation*.

That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'


----------



## the_human_being

Is There a God?


----------



## Hollie

the_human_being said:


> Is There a God?



Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you mentioned one of the gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, your partisan gods are only several of the thousands of gods that have come and gone. You've offered nothing in your gods that supplants the existence of the gods who preceded your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe religious beliefs change with time?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aghast that you're denying us the details of the "General Theory of Magical Creation". It seems that would be something valuable to support your claims to gods and the power of crystals.  I feel a need to point out that you're attempting to denigrate science by equating it with philosophical arguments that promote unsubstantiated claims to partisan gods and supermagicalism. The flaw in your argument is that you need to reduce the process of science and the consensus it brings to a philosophical argument such as the existence of gods. There is nothing philosophical about the scientific method. Science relies on evidence, testing, falsifying and repeatable results to interpret data. Those elements are not available in the case of hearsay evidence with admitted varying levels of claimed authenticity as it relates to claims of gods.
> 
> Until theology or ID'iot creationism can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more strident arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect..
> 
> Im actually fascinated by you folks who gaze at Magic crystals. Do you caress and talk to the crystals while wearing colorful costumes?
> 
> 
> Crystal Ball - Absolute Soul Secrets
> 
> 
> 
> *****SNORT*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that you're the one who peered into you crystal orb of empirical knowledge while sitting in your scintillating robes scientific truth to come up with this little dissertation. Do you spend the day in a lab scribbling with you analytical scribe of reason attempting to prove to yourself empirically that reality itself is an impossibility and therefore so is God? Even as you feebly attempt to crush with your gauntlets of analytical power the truth that eludes you and that truth is that God exists.
> 
> Even some famous ancient religious figures had God tell them....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists don't talk about God in the lab. Ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Einstein said "Gott würfelt nicht" (god doesn't throw dices) he said somehow he thinks god is an intelligent being what makes not always superflous decisions and throws dices. His motivation was to take a deeper view how the "old one" made it. He had the imagination there should be a more simple reality behind some laws in physics.
> 
> Or take Nils Bohr and lots of the most popular phycicists of all times who discussed about god in Kopenhagen. Only Dirac, no one else - (Dirac had by the way great psychological problems  too) - was absolutelly convinced god is not existing. Nils Bohr said in the end of this discussion with smiling eyes to him: "Now we know: God is not existing and Dirac is his prophet".
> 
> Scientists are by the way free men. If they speak about god then they speak about god - so easy is it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cavemen speculated about God just like Einstein did and just like you do.
> 
> Did Einstein discover God or the theory of relativity?
Click to expand...


Albert Einstein speculated not about god - nor would I say I am speculating about god. Einstein was as important for our basic knowledge about the biggest physical structures of the universe as he was important for our basic knowledge about the most little structures of the universe. In his life he spoke about god in different contextes and with changing views. But whatever he said - I would say he had always in his life an intuitive way to communicate with god. He called him often "Der Alte" (="the old one") what shows to me he lived not in fear of god and saw god in a very familiar way full of humor.

The "theory of relativity" is one of his most popular works - and I don't have any idea what you ask with the question: "Did ... discover god?". We Christians are using for example sentences like _"Examine me, god, and discover my heart" _(Johann Sebastian Bach, BWV 136)


----------



## the_human_being

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There a God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
Click to expand...


I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.


----------



## Hollie

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There a God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor. 


In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. 

Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb

_Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._

Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There a God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
Click to expand...


Wrong! It's actually very easy to accept the God hypothesis since we don't know the answer to how we got here.

It actually takes thinking and being willing to challenge the threat that you'll burn in hell if you don't believe. You're not thinking logically but instead you're playing it safe. You aren't even able to contemplate there might not be a God. That's really all we're saying. And what does it matter?

Think about it. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't a creator of the universe. What harm is there in not believing? Can you tell me?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There a God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
Click to expand...

Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.

The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect

If there was no cosmos what would there be?

Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.

Not knowing is half the fun.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive *General Theory of Supermagical Creation*.
> 
> That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'









The only one who seems to be screeching here is yourself. If you were really serious about the discussion you wouldn't constantly be trying to vilify what I have to say. However since that appears to be the only way you choose to communicate I'll provide you with an opening premise for this General Theory that you've been screeching for me to provide...






...I know it's not exactly what you might want and it doesn't cover the big bang. Additionally I will most likely update it as time goes along but....

What do you think?

On the other hand it's stood the test of time for about a hundred years now.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive *General Theory of Supermagical Creation*.
> 
> That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who seems to be screeching here is yourself. If you were really serious about the discussion you wouldn't constantly be trying to vilify what I have to say. However since that appears to be the only way you choose to communicate I'll provide you with an opening premise for this General Theory that you've been screeching for me to provide...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I know it's not exactly what you might want and I will most likely update it as time goes along but....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> On the other hand it's stood the test of time for about a hundred years now.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

How does such an equation lead us to "magic" as an answer for anything?

And, for which of the gods would the formula apply?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive *General Theory of Supermagical Creation*.
> 
> That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who seems to be screeching here is yourself. If you were really serious about the discussion you wouldn't constantly be trying to vilify what I have to say. However since that appears to be the only way you choose to communicate I'll provide you with an opening premise for this General Theory that you've been screeching for me to provide...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I know it's not exactly what you might want and it doesn't cover the big bang. Additionally I will most likely update it as time goes along but....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> On the other hand it's stood the test of time for about a hundred years now.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

You are thick as a brick


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There a God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.
> 
> The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect
> 
> If there was no cosmos what would there be?
> 
> Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.
> 
> Not knowing is half the fun.
Click to expand...






After maximum entropy has happened you have no more proof that a new universe will be formed than someone being resurrected from the dead.

Sounds like you're attempting to develop scientific creation theologies to me.

What makes your beliefs any better than theirs?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There a God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.
> 
> The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect
> 
> If there was no cosmos what would there be?
> 
> Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.
> 
> Not knowing is half the fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After maximum entropy has happened you have no more proof that a new universe will be formed than someone being resurrected from the dead.
> 
> Sounds like you're attempting to develop scientific creation theologies to me.
> 
> What makes your beliefs any better than theirs?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Why would any of the gods need to be bothered with such trivial matters as "maximum entropy"?  Wouldn't a single snap of their magical digits be enough to magically *poof* all of creation into existence?

Are you suggesting that your triune gods need such a formidable unionized collection of gods to get the job of universe building done?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive *General Theory of Supermagical Creation*.
> 
> That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who seems to be screeching here is yourself. If you were really serious about the discussion you wouldn't constantly be trying to vilify what I have to say. However since that appears to be the only way you choose to communicate I'll provide you with an opening premise for this General Theory that you've been screeching for me to provide...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I know it's not exactly what you might want and I will most likely update it as time goes along but....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> On the other hand it's stood the test of time for about a hundred years now.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does such an equation lead us to "magic" as an answer for anything?
Click to expand...


You're the one that refers to it as magic.

I've continually stated that 'I observe God and his/her wondrous works every day.'

Do you like the equation?

*****CHUCKLE*****



Hollie said:


> And, for which of the gods would the formula apply?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****







Why.....

*****CHUCKLE*****




.....of course!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.
> 
> The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect
> 
> If there was no cosmos what would there be?
> 
> Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.
> 
> Not knowing is half the fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After maximum entropy has happened you have no more proof that a new universe will be formed than someone being resurrected from the dead.
> 
> Sounds like you're attempting to develop scientific creation theologies to me.
> 
> What makes your beliefs any better than theirs?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would any of the gods need to be bothered with such trivial matters as "maximum entropy"?  Wouldn't a single snap of their magical digits be enough to magically *poof* all of creation into existence?
> 
> Are you suggesting that your triune gods need such a formidable unionized collection of gods to get the job of universe building done?
Click to expand...






Perhaps a reading comprehension course might help you?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There a God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.
> 
> The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect
> 
> If there was no cosmos what would there be?
> 
> Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.
> 
> Not knowing is half the fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After maximum entropy has happened you have no more proof that a new universe will be formed than someone being resurrected from the dead.
> 
> Sounds like you're attempting to develop scientific creation theologies to me.
> 
> What makes your beliefs any better than theirs?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

What do you think will happen after the last star burns out in 10 billion years?

Even if there's a god you think this is his last universe?

Why do you think that?


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There a God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.
> 
> The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect
> 
> If there was no cosmos what would there be?
> 
> Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.
> 
> Not knowing is half the fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After maximum entropy has happened you have no more proof that a new universe will be formed than someone being resurrected from the dead.
> 
> Sounds like you're attempting to develop scientific creation theologies to me.
> 
> What makes your beliefs any better than theirs?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

What do you think will happen after the last star burns out in 10 billion years?

Even if there's a god you think this is his last universe?

Why do you think that?


Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.
> 
> The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect
> 
> If there was no cosmos what would there be?
> 
> Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.
> 
> Not knowing is half the fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After maximum entropy has happened you have no more proof that a new universe will be formed than someone being resurrected from the dead.
> 
> Sounds like you're attempting to develop scientific creation theologies to me.
> 
> What makes your beliefs any better than theirs?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would any of the gods need to be bothered with such trivial matters as "maximum entropy"?  Wouldn't a single snap of their magical digits be enough to magically *poof* all of creation into existence?
> 
> Are you suggesting that your triune gods need such a formidable unionized collection of gods to get the job of universe building done?
Click to expand...

That makes more sense. I just can't believe there's one God but multiple gods maybe. And then there must be multiple devils. I wonder if the god of our universe is a good God or average or great God.

In another universe humans die as soon as they give birth. Like salmon they drop their eggs and die or get eaten by bear.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.
> 
> The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect
> 
> If there was no cosmos what would there be?
> 
> Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.
> 
> Not knowing is half the fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After maximum entropy has happened you have no more proof that a new universe will be formed than someone being resurrected from the dead.
> 
> Sounds like you're attempting to develop scientific creation theologies to me.
> 
> What makes your beliefs any better than theirs?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think will happen after the last star burns out in 10 billion years?
> 
> Even if there's a god you think this is his last universe?
> 
> Why do you think that?
Click to expand...







Why do you care?

You're the one who said some new universe will be formed after entropy envelopes the universe like resurrecting a person form the grave.

Prove it!

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There a God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. ...
Click to expand...


The wrong sentence "everything happene by accident" has nearly nothing to do with the theory of evolution - and "intelligent design" has nearly nothing to do  with the belief in god and his creation. God created for example the natural laws we subsumize under the expression "biological evolution". Or if people are speaking for example about an "evolution of cars" or an "evolution of software" than the use of the word "evolution" in such contextes makes no sense at all. Everything what human beings are producing follows plans.  If we think about the plans of gods  - Why made he what's here? Why in this way? - then we find very fast some points where we are not able to think about any longer. We need to trust in god not only sometimes. Oh by the way. Alleluja:

He's risen. Indeed he is risen.


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive *General Theory of Supermagical Creation*.
> 
> That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who seems to be screeching here is yourself. If you were really serious about the discussion you wouldn't constantly be trying to vilify what I have to say. However since that appears to be the only way you choose to communicate I'll provide you with an opening premise for this General Theory that you've been screeching for me to provide...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I know it's not exactly what you might want and I will most likely update it as time goes along but....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> On the other hand it's stood the test of time for about a hundred years now.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does such an equation lead us to "magic" as an answer for anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that refers to it as magic.
> 
> I've continually stated that 'I observe God and his/her wondrous works every day.'
> 
> Do you like the equation?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, for which of the gods would the formula apply?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69154
> 
> Why.....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....of course!
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Are you also hearing "the voices" when you witness the gods?

How many of the gods do you witness on an average day?


Do they appear more or less often when you forget your meds?


*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that is all the same apologetics spewed by the Institute for Creation Research and every other fundamentalist creation ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.
> 
> The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect
> 
> If there was no cosmos what would there be?
> 
> Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.
> 
> Not knowing is half the fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After maximum entropy has happened you have no more proof that a new universe will be formed than someone being resurrected from the dead.
> 
> Sounds like you're attempting to develop scientific creation theologies to me.
> 
> What makes your beliefs any better than theirs?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think will happen after the last star burns out in 10 billion years?
> 
> Even if there's a god you think this is his last universe?
> 
> Why do you think that?
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit that it requires a lot more faith to believe that everything happened by accident instead of by intelligent design. One cannot even get the brake pads installed on his car by accident. Even that minor job requires intelligence to accomplish. Most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your comments are literal reiteration of ID'iot creationist playbook material. The harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, competition for survival, all of that contradicts the notion of the "finely tuned universe" that you're promoting on behalf of the Christian fundamentalist ministries. In effect, you're implying that your gods are incompetent designers. The "finely tuned" universe was tuned by inept mechanics. Be sure to thank the gods for earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes and all manner of "acts of the gods" that kill people. Oh, and thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell. Those gods, they have such a wry sense of humor.
> 
> 
> In connection with your "random chance" comment, and with specific regard to biological evolution, you make a mistake common among those unfamiliar with evolutionary processes and those pressing an agenda derived from Christian creation ministries. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.
> 
> Your comment: "most random mutations only produce destruction and chaos." Is nonsensical.
> 
> Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> _Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity._
> 
> Unfortunately, you fail to realize the hopelessness of ID'iot creationism as a means to explain anything. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that there is nothing in ID'iot creationism that can be used as a reliable or even useful way to detect ‘super-magical design’. Secondly, nothing in ID'iot creationism can _exclude_ Darwinian evolution ie:, natural selection as a mechanism even when your super-magical designer gawds are presumed as the cause of existence. Thirdly ID'iot creationism has failed as a mechanism to make predictions based upon the extant theory (as science does) leaving ID'iot creationism shown to be useful only as a trivial, non-scientific absurdity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without the lie that God visited them they really don't have very good arguments.
> 
> The cosmos are. They always will be and always have been. Our universe may only last 23 billion years but it won't be the last universe to ever be created. The cosmos are eternal. They're no need for a God. What made the cosmos? What made God? Nothing is perfect
> 
> If there was no cosmos what would there be?
> 
> Now why are there Suns? Who knows? Maybe God made them.
> 
> Not knowing is half the fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After maximum entropy has happened you have no more proof that a new universe will be formed than someone being resurrected from the dead.
> 
> Sounds like you're attempting to develop scientific creation theologies to me.
> 
> What makes your beliefs any better than theirs?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would any of the gods need to be bothered with such trivial matters as "maximum entropy"?  Wouldn't a single snap of their magical digits be enough to magically *poof* all of creation into existence?
> 
> Are you suggesting that your triune gods need such a formidable unionized collection of gods to get the job of universe building done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes more sense. I just can't believe there's one God but multiple gods maybe. And then there must be multiple devils. I wonder if the god of our universe is a good God or average or great God.
> 
> In another universe humans die as soon as they give birth. Like salmon they drop their eggs and die or get eaten by bear.
Click to expand...


There are gods of fire and thunder so I wouldn't want to slight the poor salmon and not dedicate a god or two to their well-being.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive *General Theory of Supermagical Creation*.
> 
> That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who seems to be screeching here is yourself. If you were really serious about the discussion you wouldn't constantly be trying to vilify what I have to say. However since that appears to be the only way you choose to communicate I'll provide you with an opening premise for this General Theory that you've been screeching for me to provide...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I know it's not exactly what you might want and I will most likely update it as time goes along but....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> On the other hand it's stood the test of time for about a hundred years now.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does such an equation lead us to "magic" as an answer for anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that refers to it as magic.
> 
> I've continually stated that 'I observe God and his/her wondrous works every day.'
> 
> Do you like the equation?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, for which of the gods would the formula apply?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69154
> 
> Why.....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....of course!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting. Are you also hearing "the voices" when you witness the gods?
> 
> How many of the gods do you witness on an average day?
> 
> 
> Do they appear more or less often when you forget your meds?
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...







You're the one who appears to think there are multiple gods along with seeing and hearing things that aren't there.

The question now is why you are resorting to personal attacks after I've provided you the basic information that you've requested?

The obvious conclusion is because you've decided that you've lost the argument and feel it necessary to be abusive like all good progressive liberal inquisitors.

Will you be adapting the Templar March and Flag to your Holy Scientific Crusade?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

@sealbody: You "know " very exact what your selfdefined enemies are thinking: it's wrong what they are thinking while you are right because you don't believe but you know only. Question: Why are you not able to explain what the knowledge is and where the knowledge comes from that you forces not to believe in god?


Surrexit dominus vere. Alleluja. Alleluja. Surrexit Christus. Alleluja. Alleluja.


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive *General Theory of Supermagical Creation*.
> 
> That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who seems to be screeching here is yourself. If you were really serious about the discussion you wouldn't constantly be trying to vilify what I have to say. However since that appears to be the only way you choose to communicate I'll provide you with an opening premise for this General Theory that you've been screeching for me to provide...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I know it's not exactly what you might want and I will most likely update it as time goes along but....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> On the other hand it's stood the test of time for about a hundred years now.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does such an equation lead us to "magic" as an answer for anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that refers to it as magic.
> 
> I've continually stated that 'I observe God and his/her wondrous works every day.'
> 
> Do you like the equation?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, for which of the gods would the formula apply?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69154
> 
> Why.....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....of course!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting. Are you also hearing "the voices" when you witness the gods?
> 
> How many of the gods do you witness on an average day?
> 
> 
> Do they appear more or less often when you forget your meds?
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who appears to think there are multiple gods along with seeing and hearing things that aren't there.
> 
> The question now is why you are resorting to personal attacks after I've provided you the basic information that you've requested?
> 
> The obvious conclusion is because you've decided that you've lost the argument and feel it necessary to be abusive like all good progressive liberal inquisitors.
> 
> Will you be adapting the Templar March and Flag to your Holy Scientific Crusade?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Let's be honest. You have only reiterated the same silly slogans about some alleged gods you believe exist.

Where is your *General Theory of Supermagical Creation* so we can assess your claims to partisan gods?

How are your gods better represented than the Greek gods?

How and when have your gods relegated Amun Ra to a lesser God?


Are you going to march on a crusade or launch your own USMB Inquisition?



*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, for all your screeching about your gods, you still can't provide a comprehensive *General Theory of Supermagical Creation*.
> 
> That's a shame but it's very typical of the screeching done by the various creation ministries. Maybe you're a Harun Yahya devotee'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who seems to be screeching here is yourself. If you were really serious about the discussion you wouldn't constantly be trying to vilify what I have to say. However since that appears to be the only way you choose to communicate I'll provide you with an opening premise for this General Theory that you've been screeching for me to provide...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I know it's not exactly what you might want and I will most likely update it as time goes along but....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> On the other hand it's stood the test of time for about a hundred years now.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does such an equation lead us to "magic" as an answer for anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that refers to it as magic.
> 
> I've continually stated that 'I observe God and his/her wondrous works every day.'
> 
> Do you like the equation?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, for which of the gods would the formula apply?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69154
> 
> Why.....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....of course!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting. Are you also hearing "the voices" when you witness the gods?
> 
> How many of the gods do you witness on an average day?
> 
> 
> Do they appear more or less often when you forget your meds?
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who appears to think there are multiple gods along with seeing and hearing things that aren't there.
> 
> The question now is why you are resorting to personal attacks after I've provided you the basic information that you've requested?
> 
> The obvious conclusion is because you've decided that you've lost the argument and feel it necessary to be abusive like all good progressive liberal inquisitors.
> 
> Will you be adapting the Templar March and Flag to your Holy Scientific Crusade?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

No, just at some point all that's left is to mock. You want us to assume your God exists but haven't even come close to proving it does.

Of course the Jews came up with the "there's only one God" shtick. They cornered the market.. Brilliant.

I would like to see the evidence humans were given when they decided there is only one God. Other than religion logic of course. Can I see the evidence?


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> @sealbody: You "know " very exact what your selfdefined enemies are thinking: it's wrong what they are thinking while you are right because you don't believe but you know only. Question: Why are you not able to explain what the knowledge is and where the knowledge comes from that you forces not to believe in god?
> 
> 
> Surrexit dominus vere. Alleluja. Alleluja. Surrexit Christus. Alleluja. Alleluja.


Where do I begin. Googl whynogod, read every point and get back to me


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one who seems to be screeching here is yourself. If you were really serious about the discussion you wouldn't constantly be trying to vilify what I have to say. However since that appears to be the only way you choose to communicate I'll provide you with an opening premise for this General Theory that you've been screeching for me to provide...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I know it's not exactly what you might want and I will most likely update it as time goes along but....
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> On the other hand it's stood the test of time for about a hundred years now.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does such an equation lead us to "magic" as an answer for anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that refers to it as magic.
> 
> I've continually stated that 'I observe God and his/her wondrous works every day.'
> 
> Do you like the equation?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, for which of the gods would the formula apply?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69154
> 
> Why.....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....of course!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting. Are you also hearing "the voices" when you witness the gods?
> 
> How many of the gods do you witness on an average day?
> 
> 
> Do they appear more or less often when you forget your meds?
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who appears to think there are multiple gods along with seeing and hearing things that aren't there.
> 
> The question now is why you are resorting to personal attacks after I've provided you the basic information that you've requested?
> 
> The obvious conclusion is because you've decided that you've lost the argument and feel it necessary to be abusive like all good progressive liberal inquisitors.
> 
> Will you be adapting the Templar March and Flag to your Holy Scientific Crusade?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's be honest. You have only reiterated the same silly slogans about some alleged gods you believe exist.
Click to expand...


I don't believe.

I know.



Hollie said:


> Where is your *General Theory of Supermagical Creation* so we can assess your claims to partisan gods?



I provided you a basic premise for God's existence... Wasn't that enough?



Hollie said:


> How are your gods better represented than the Greek gods?



Perhaps if you were paying attention and willing to discuss the issue you'd know.



Hollie said:


> How and when have your gods relegated Amun Ra to a lesser God?



How have yours?



Hollie said:


> Are you going to march on a crusade or launch your own USMB Inquisition?
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



It would appear that you're already on a crusade of your own.

Unfortunately for you.....






I'm still here.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does such an equation lead us to "magic" as an answer for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one that refers to it as magic.
> 
> I've continually stated that 'I observe God and his/her wondrous works every day.'
> 
> Do you like the equation?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, for which of the gods would the formula apply?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69154
> 
> Why.....
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....of course!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting. Are you also hearing "the voices" when you witness the gods?
> 
> How many of the gods do you witness on an average day?
> 
> 
> Do they appear more or less often when you forget your meds?
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who appears to think there are multiple gods along with seeing and hearing things that aren't there.
> 
> The question now is why you are resorting to personal attacks after I've provided you the basic information that you've requested?
> 
> The obvious conclusion is because you've decided that you've lost the argument and feel it necessary to be abusive like all good progressive liberal inquisitors.
> 
> Will you be adapting the Templar March and Flag to your Holy Scientific Crusade?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's be honest. You have only reiterated the same silly slogans about some alleged gods you believe exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe.
> 
> I know.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your *General Theory of Supermagical Creation* so we can assess your claims to partisan gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided you a basic premise for God's existence... Wasn't that enough?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are your gods better represented than the Greek gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you were paying attention and willing to discuss the issue you'd know.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How and when have your gods relegated Amun Ra to a lesser God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have yours?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to march on a crusade or launch your own USMB Inquisition?
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that you're already on a crusade of your own.
> 
> Unfortunately for you.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still here.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

It's a bit disingenuous to claim you offered anything at all as a premise for your gods. Your claim that you witness the gods everyday is nothing more than an emotional need or want. It tells us nothing about the nature of your gods or if you are witnessing some gods other than your partisan gods.



Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

None of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of "the gods to be announced at a future date" until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select Zeus and his unionized gods over yours.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> No, just at some point all that's left is to mock. You want us to assume your God exists but haven't even come close to proving it does.



That's very mature of you... It's pretty obvious that appears to be all they taught you in school.



sealybobo said:


> Of course the Jews came up with the "there's only one God" shtick. They cornered the market.. Brilliant.



Perhaps they were right.



sealybobo said:


> I would like to see the evidence humans were given when they decided there is only one God. Other than religion logic of course. Can I see the evidence?
















*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> It's a bit disingenuous to claim you offered anything at all as a premise for your gods. Your claim that you witness the gods everyday is nothing more than an emotional need or want. It tells us nothing about the nature of your gods or if you are witnessing some gods other than your partisan gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!
> 
> None of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of "the gods to be announced at a future date" until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select Zeus and his unionized gods over yours.







You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...






Do you recognize it?

It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.

So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?

Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?

Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.

Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> @sealbody: You "know " very exact what your selfdefined enemies are thinking: it's wrong what they are thinking while you are right because you don't believe but you know only. Question: Why are you not able to explain what the knowledge is and where the knowledge comes from that you forces not to believe in god?
> 
> 
> Surrexit dominus vere. Alleluja. Alleluja. Surrexit Christus. Alleluja. Alleluja.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do I begin. Googl whynogod, read every point and get back to me
Click to expand...


You don't know very much about science. You know nearly nothing about relgion. And now you don't know why you don't believe in god but others know? ... Hmm ... If I see it in the right way, then you don't like to speak with me nor with any other Christian about anything else than our wrongness ... You only like to speak nonsense and preach abhorrence. Do you have other hobbies too?


----------



## Hollie

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit disingenuous to claim you offered anything at all as a premise for your gods. Your claim that you witness the gods everyday is nothing more than an emotional need or want. It tells us nothing about the nature of your gods or if you are witnessing some gods other than your partisan gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!
> 
> None of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of "the gods to be announced at a future date" until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select Zeus and his unionized gods over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69172
> 
> You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize it?
> 
> It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.
> 
> So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?
> 
> Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.
> 
> Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods. 

Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> @sealbody: You "know " very exact what your selfdefined enemies are thinking: it's wrong what they are thinking while you are right because you don't believe but you know only. Question: Why are you not able to explain what the knowledge is and where the knowledge comes from that you forces not to believe in god?
> 
> 
> Surrexit dominus vere. Alleluja. Alleluja. Surrexit Christus. Alleluja. Alleluja.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do I begin. Googl whynogod, read every point and get back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know very much about science. You know nearly nothing about relgion. And now you don't know why you don't believe in god but others know? ... Hmm ... If I see it in the right way, then you don't like to speak with me nor with any other Christian about anything else than our wrongness. ...You only like to speak nonsens about us and preach abhorrence. Do you have other hobbies too?
Click to expand...

I see the harm caused by believing in god or people who believe in God, especially towards us non believers.  But I don't see the harm in someone not believing. Hollie and I aren't monsters. So what we don't believe?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Hollie said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit disingenuous to claim you offered anything at all as a premise for your gods. Your claim that you witness the gods everyday is nothing more than an emotional need or want. It tells us nothing about the nature of your gods or if you are witnessing some gods other than your partisan gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!
> 
> None of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of "the gods to be announced at a future date" until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select Zeus and his unionized gods over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69172
> 
> You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize it?
> 
> It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.
> 
> So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?
> 
> Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.
> 
> Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
Click to expand...






No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.

However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...





EFE

Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.

Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...

Pantheist....

Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...

*Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> @sealbody: You "know " very exact what your selfdefined enemies are thinking: it's wrong what they are thinking while you are right because you don't believe but you know only. Question: Why are you not able to explain what the knowledge is and where the knowledge comes from that you forces not to believe in god?
> 
> 
> Surrexit dominus vere. Alleluja. Alleluja. Surrexit Christus. Alleluja. Alleluja.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do I begin. Googl whynogod, read every point and get back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know very much about science. You know nearly nothing about relgion. And now you don't know why you don't believe in god but others know? ... Hmm ... If I see it in the right way, then you don't like to speak with me nor with any other Christian about anything else than our wrongness. ...You only like to speak nonsens about us and preach abhorrence. Do you have other hobbies too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the harm caused by believing in god or people who believe in God, especially towards us non believers.  But I don't see the harm in someone not believing. Hollie and I aren't monsters. So what we don't believe?
Click to expand...


I will go and pray now for people who lost someone this Easter. One of this killed human beings is a Muslim who was murdered from an unbeliever - a Muslim too - because he wished  Christians "Happy Easter". I don't know his name - but god knows.

Tell me what you wan when your war is over - if it ever will be over.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit disingenuous to claim you offered anything at all as a premise for your gods. Your claim that you witness the gods everyday is nothing more than an emotional need or want. It tells us nothing about the nature of your gods or if you are witnessing some gods other than your partisan gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!
> 
> None of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of "the gods to be announced at a future date" until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select Zeus and his unionized gods over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69172
> 
> You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize it?
> 
> It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.
> 
> So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?
> 
> Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.
> 
> Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> @sealbody: You "know " very exact what your selfdefined enemies are thinking: it's wrong what they are thinking while you are right because you don't believe but you know only. Question: Why are you not able to explain what the knowledge is and where the knowledge comes from that you forces not to believe in god?
> 
> 
> Surrexit dominus vere. Alleluja. Alleluja. Surrexit Christus. Alleluja. Alleluja.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do I begin. Googl whynogod, read every point and get back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know very much about science. You know nearly nothing about relgion. And now you don't know why you don't believe in god but others know? ... Hmm ... If I see it in the right way, then you don't like to speak with me nor with any other Christian about anything else than our wrongness. ...You only like to speak nonsens about us and preach abhorrence. Do you have other hobbies too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the harm caused by believing in god or people who believe in God, especially towards us non believers.  But I don't see the harm in someone not believing. Hollie and I aren't monsters. So what we don't believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will go and pray now for people who lost someone this Easter. One of this killed human beings is a Muslim who was murdered from an unbeliever - a Muslim too - because he wished  Christians "Happy Easter". I don't know his name - but god knows.
> 
> Tell me what you wan when your war is over - if it ever will be over.
Click to expand...

When it is acceptable for a presidential candidate to be openly atheist, we'll talk then. But not before. And until then, boo hoo.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a nice philosofical post and I don't doubt that for you god is completely real. Couple of things God has gotten carried away if you believe in him, unless you believe drowning every living thing on this planet expect those creatures put on the ark is reaonable. And I do not have much of a problem with religion in itself, what I have a humongous problem with is when religion thinks it has a right to way in on scientific problems, without feeling the need then to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. And when science treads on area's where religion previously had the only answer, wich has happened numerous times in history. Religion has to bow out unless they can come up with rational, verifiable proof. Man's place in nature, earth's prominence in the universe even the question where we come from, are all things where science has come up with rational answers and then religion has to retreat.
> 
> 
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's logical proof or rationalism.
> 
> Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.
> 
> It's not I that do not have a clue.  You'll understand one day.
> 
> To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.
> 
> You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean when you take a step back and look at the facts?  There is more evidence that God exists.  It helps to have a little faith.
> 
> And how can you say someone who has lasted all these years suggests ignorance?  Science, while it eventually comes to the truth, is mostly wrong.  Science ends up backing the Bible.  What other ignorance are you referring to besides science?
> 
> And who is lying to you?  Descartes?  Surely, his, "I think, therefore I am" has stood the test of time.  His proof of God lies in striving for perfection.  That means getting 100% correct on the test.  Winning.  Doing your best since we're not perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more evidence that God exists. FALSE
> It helps to have a little faith. TRUE
> Science is mostly wrong FALSE
> Science ends up backing the bible FALSE
> The rest is just nonsense.  Zero extra credit for that last part.
> 
> So you got 1 out of 4 wrong.  You didn't get even close to 100% on the test.
Click to expand...


Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.  

The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this proof? "So the first proof of God is based on the following:
> 1.  After determining that I exist because I think and can doubt, I realize that I am not perfect.  I make mistakes.  Get angry.  I do not do what I am supposed to do.  On the other hand, God, this being, is perfect and all powerful."
> 
> How do you know that god is perfect and all powerful? Did you make that up?
> How do you know that god gets angry and never makes mistakes? What about babies born with severe deformities?
> What about this load of malarkey, where's your proof? "God must exist because we all admire perfection".
> 
> You lack a real sense of deduction. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hope you get a clue someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's logical proof or rationalism.
> 
> Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.
> 
> It's not I that do not have a clue.  You'll understand one day.
> 
> To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.
> 
> You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean when you take a step back and look at the facts?  There is more evidence that God exists.  It helps to have a little faith.
> 
> And how can you say someone who has lasted all these years suggests ignorance?  Science, while it eventually comes to the truth, is mostly wrong.  Science ends up backing the Bible.  What other ignorance are you referring to besides science?
> 
> And who is lying to you?  Descartes?  Surely, his, "I think, therefore I am" has stood the test of time.  His proof of God lies in striving for perfection.  That means getting 100% correct on the test.  Winning.  Doing your best since we're not perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more evidence that God exists. FALSE
> It helps to have a little faith. TRUE
> Science is mostly wrong FALSE
> Science ends up backing the bible FALSE
> The rest is just nonsense.  Zero extra credit for that last part.
> 
> So you got 1 out of 4 wrong.  You didn't get even close to 100% on the test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.
> 
> The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.
Click to expand...

Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.


----------



## HUGGY

The Christian creationists have been trying to sell the idea that all theories are equal.  That concept is supposed to carry more weight than just faith.  It does not.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> @sealbody: You "know " very exact what your selfdefined enemies are thinking: it's wrong what they are thinking while you are right because you don't believe but you know only. Question: Why are you not able to explain what the knowledge is and where the knowledge comes from that you forces not to believe in god?
> 
> 
> Surrexit dominus vere. Alleluja. Alleluja. Surrexit Christus. Alleluja. Alleluja.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do I begin. Googl whynogod, read every point and get back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know very much about science. You know nearly nothing about relgion. And now you don't know why you don't believe in god but others know? ... Hmm ... If I see it in the right way, then you don't like to speak with me nor with any other Christian about anything else than our wrongness. ...You only like to speak nonsens about us and preach abhorrence. Do you have other hobbies too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see the harm caused by believing in god or people who believe in God, especially towards us non believers.  But I don't see the harm in someone not believing. Hollie and I aren't monsters. So what we don't believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will go and pray now for people who lost someone this Easter. One of this killed human beings is a Muslim who was murdered from an unbeliever - a Muslim too - because he wished  Christians "Happy Easter". I don't know his name - but god knows.
> 
> Tell me what you wan when your war is over - if it ever will be over.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is acceptable for a presidential candidate to be openly atheist, we'll talk then. But not before. And until then, boo hoo.
Click to expand...


Bye bye Mr. "I like to be the president maker". Atheists in governments are by the way nothing what I prefer. But on the other side: Lots of people suffer a lack of orientation. Do you know where the word "orientation" comes from? It means to orient oneselve together with others direction Easter for praying, where the sun of god will start to begin to shine in the new morning of everyones life who has eyes to see. From my point of view you are a prisoner of your own thoughts. Perhaps you will find a way to leave this prison. Sometimes this needs only a step through a not existing wall.


*Freiheit*

_Die Verträge sind gemacht 
und es wurde viel gelacht 
und was Süßes zum Dessert 
Freiheit Freiheit

Die Kappelle rum-ta-ta 
und der Papst war auch schon da 
und mein Nachbar vorneweg 
Freiheit Freiheit 
ist die einzige die fehlt
Freiheit Freiheit 
ist die einzige die fehlt

Der Mensch ist leider nicht naiv 
der Mensch ist leider primitiv 
Freiheit Freiheit 
wurde wieder abbestellt

Alle die von Freiheit träumen 
sollen's Feiern nicht versäumen 
sollen tanzen auch auf Gräbern 
Freiheit Freiheit 
ist das einzige was zählt 

Freiheit Freiheit 
ist das einzige was zählt_

*Marius Müller-Westernhagen*


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit disingenuous to claim you offered anything at all as a premise for your gods. Your claim that you witness the gods everyday is nothing more than an emotional need or want. It tells us nothing about the nature of your gods or if you are witnessing some gods other than your partisan gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!
> 
> None of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of "the gods to be announced at a future date" until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select Zeus and his unionized gods over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69172
> 
> You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize it?
> 
> It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.
> 
> So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?
> 
> Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.
> 
> Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?
Click to expand...


What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.


PS: He refers to the field equations of Einstein - see: Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit disingenuous to claim you offered anything at all as a premise for your gods. Your claim that you witness the gods everyday is nothing more than an emotional need or want. It tells us nothing about the nature of your gods or if you are witnessing some gods other than your partisan gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!
> 
> None of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of "the gods to be announced at a future date" until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select Zeus and his unionized gods over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69172
> 
> You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize it?
> 
> It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.
> 
> So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?
> 
> Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.
> 
> Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.
Click to expand...

Just remember I'll stop having a problem with theists when they stop having a problem with us.

For example would an atheist stand a chance of becoming president? Hell no. So stop asking us why we are so anti religion. We aren't nearly as bothered by you as you are us. And that makes no sense seeing as how you KNOW God exists.

If you were sure you wouldn't get your feelings hurt.


----------



## Mudda

Damaged Eagle said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit disingenuous to claim you offered anything at all as a premise for your gods. Your claim that you witness the gods everyday is nothing more than an emotional need or want. It tells us nothing about the nature of your gods or if you are witnessing some gods other than your partisan gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!
> 
> None of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of "the gods to be announced at a future date" until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select Zeus and his unionized gods over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69172
> 
> You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize it?
> 
> It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.
> 
> So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?
> 
> Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.
> 
> Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

How does Einstein's equation prove God?


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69172
> 
> You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize it?
> 
> It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.
> 
> So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?
> 
> Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.
> 
> Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just remember I'll stop having a problem with theists when they stop having a problem with us.[/uqpote]
> 
> I'm not a theist -  I'm a Catholic. Only because you give us names makes nothing right or wrong what you say. And I don't know anything about your problems. You never spoke about your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example would an atheist stand a chance of becoming president? Hell no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was not an atheist in this function?
> 
> [Qutoe]So stop asking us why we are so anti religion. We aren't nearly as bothered by you as you are us. And that makes no sense seeing as how you KNOW God exists.
> 
> If you were sure you wouldn't get your feelings hurt.
Click to expand...


You are not able to hurt my feeling because you don't believe in god. That's your freedom. God gave this freedom. Your problem seems to be that you spiral slowly down into indoctrinated toughts as if they would be a black hole. But you have more degrees of freedom. Physics or science is not always a wise philosopher. Ask concrete scientists or phycicists or technicians or programmers or ... homeless people maybe. No one stops to be a human being only because he knows something about natural laws or mathematics. There's always more.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just remember I'll stop having a problem with theists when they stop having a problem with us.[/uqpote]
> 
> I'm not a theist -  I'm a Catholic. Only because you give us names makes nothing right or wrong what you say. And I don't know anything about your problems. You never spoke about your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example would an atheist stand a chance of becoming president? Hell no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was not an atheist in this function?
> 
> [Qutoe]So stop asking us why we are so anti religion. We aren't nearly as bothered by you as you are us. And that makes no sense seeing as how you KNOW God exists.
> 
> If you were sure you wouldn't get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not able to hurt my feeling because you don't believe in god. That's your freedom. God gave this freedom. Your problem seems to be that you spiral slowly down into indoctrinated toughts as if they would be a black hole. But you have more degrees of freedom. Physics or science is not always a wise philosopher. Ask concrete scientists or phycicists or technicians or programmers or ... homeless people maybe. No one stops to be a human being only because he knows something about natural laws or mathematics. There's always more.
Click to expand...

Zaan is a fake holocaust survivor. Don't listen to anything he says.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit disingenuous to claim you offered anything at all as a premise for your gods. Your claim that you witness the gods everyday is nothing more than an emotional need or want. It tells us nothing about the nature of your gods or if you are witnessing some gods other than your partisan gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!
> 
> None of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of "the gods to be announced at a future date" until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select Zeus and his unionized gods over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69172
> 
> You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize it?
> 
> It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.
> 
> So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?
> 
> Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.
> 
> Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.
> 
> 
> PS: He refers to the field equations of Einstein - see: Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


You have terrible taste in music.  Just terrible.  Lol.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just remember I'll stop having a problem with theists when they stop having a problem with us.[/uqpote]
> 
> I'm not a theist -  I'm a Catholic. Only because you give us names makes nothing right or wrong what you say. And I don't know anything about your problems. You never spoke about your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example would an atheist stand a chance of becoming president? Hell no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was not an atheist in this function?
> 
> [Qutoe]So stop asking us why we are so anti religion. We aren't nearly as bothered by you as you are us. And that makes no sense seeing as how you KNOW God exists.
> 
> If you were sure you wouldn't get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not able to hurt my feeling because you don't believe in god. That's your freedom. God gave this freedom. Your problem seems to be that you spiral slowly down into indoctrinated toughts as if they would be a black hole. But you have more degrees of freedom. Physics or science is not always a wise philosopher. Ask concrete scientists or phycicists or technicians or programmers or ... homeless people maybe. No one stops to be a human being only because he knows something about natural laws or mathematics. There's always more.
Click to expand...

Or you're just another animal that lives and dies.

Just be glad you have a 50+ year lifespan, you live in this era and not back when Jesus was alive, you live in a good country and you are the smartest animal on this planet.

A priest on TV today said you should consider me your Goliath. Without him who would Sampson have been?


----------



## sealybobo

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just remember I'll stop having a problem with theists when they stop having a problem with us.[/uqpote]
> 
> I'm not a theist -  I'm a Catholic. Only because you give us names makes nothing right or wrong what you say. And I don't know anything about your problems. You never spoke about your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example would an atheist stand a chance of becoming president? Hell no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was not an atheist in this function?
> 
> [Qutoe]So stop asking us why we are so anti religion. We aren't nearly as bothered by you as you are us. And that makes no sense seeing as how you KNOW God exists.
> 
> If you were sure you wouldn't get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not able to hurt my feeling because you don't believe in god. That's your freedom. God gave this freedom. Your problem seems to be that you spiral slowly down into indoctrinated toughts as if they would be a black hole. But you have more degrees of freedom. Physics or science is not always a wise philosopher. Ask concrete scientists or phycicists or technicians or programmers or ... homeless people maybe. No one stops to be a human being only because he knows something about natural laws or mathematics. There's always more.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zaan is a fake holocaust survivor. Don't listen to anything he says.
Click to expand...

A Jew for Jesus?


----------



## Mudda

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just remember I'll stop having a problem with theists when they stop having a problem with us.[/uqpote]
> 
> I'm not a theist -  I'm a Catholic. Only because you give us names makes nothing right or wrong what you say. And I don't know anything about your problems. You never spoke about your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example would an atheist stand a chance of becoming president? Hell no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was not an atheist in this function?
> 
> [Qutoe]So stop asking us why we are so anti religion. We aren't nearly as bothered by you as you are us. And that makes no sense seeing as how you KNOW God exists.
> 
> If you were sure you wouldn't get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not able to hurt my feeling because you don't believe in god. That's your freedom. God gave this freedom. Your problem seems to be that you spiral slowly down into indoctrinated toughts as if they would be a black hole. But you have more degrees of freedom. Physics or science is not always a wise philosopher. Ask concrete scientists or phycicists or technicians or programmers or ... homeless people maybe. No one stops to be a human being only because he knows something about natural laws or mathematics. There's always more.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zaan is a fake holocaust survivor. Don't listen to anything he says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Jew for Jesus?
Click to expand...

I dunno if he's a Jew, but he's always on here whining for sympathy because he claims he's a Holocaust survivor.


----------



## sealybobo

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just remember I'll stop having a problem with theists when they stop having a problem with us.[/uqpote]
> 
> I'm not a theist -  I'm a Catholic. Only because you give us names makes nothing right or wrong what you say. And I don't know anything about your problems. You never spoke about your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example would an atheist stand a chance of becoming president? Hell no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was not an atheist in this function?
> 
> [Qutoe]So stop asking us why we are so anti religion. We aren't nearly as bothered by you as you are us. And that makes no sense seeing as how you KNOW God exists.
> 
> If you were sure you wouldn't get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not able to hurt my feeling because you don't believe in god. That's your freedom. God gave this freedom. Your problem seems to be that you spiral slowly down into indoctrinated toughts as if they would be a black hole. But you have more degrees of freedom. Physics or science is not always a wise philosopher. Ask concrete scientists or phycicists or technicians or programmers or ... homeless people maybe. No one stops to be a human being only because he knows something about natural laws or mathematics. There's always more.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zaan is a fake holocaust survivor. Don't listen to anything he says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Jew for Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno if he's a Jew, but he's always on here whining for sympathy because he claims he's a Holocaust survivor.
Click to expand...

Then is he an old fag? They locked them up too.

Sounds like a buddy of mine. Jew for jesus


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 69172
> 
> You've never asked what my belief in God is, other than to mock me, so my premise stands...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recognize it?
> 
> It would appear that you have a problem with my beliefs.
> 
> So why don't you address my beliefs instead of making things up?
> 
> Are you afraid I might be right or are you simply a troll who wishes to vilify things?
> 
> Sounds like you need to write a Analytical Empirical Scientific Analysis God Journal for your little crusade against God.
> 
> Then you can really get your crusade to rolling...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to get angry because I don't accept your "..... because I say so" claims to partisan gods.
> 
> Others have gods too. You've offered nothing that brings your gods to the front of the line vs. competing gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 69183
> 
> No one is getting angry here.... Bored with your ignorance and intolerance would be a more appropriate descriptive.
> 
> However it would appear that neither of you (Hollie and sealybobo) can recognize the equation I've provided as a basic premise for God's existence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EFE
> 
> Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Both of you assume things instead of asking intelligent questions. So it's also pretty obvious that neither of you have any concept of differing religious beliefs and only wish to mock others about their religious beliefs. In my opinion that makes both of you nothing better than trolls and I'm no longer wasting my time with either of you.
> 
> Oh!!!!! Since you decided not to read the thread...
> 
> Pantheist....
> 
> Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But I spect' neither of you will read that either so...
> 
> *Pantheism* is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. *Pantheists* thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.
> 
> So yes my God is represented in the equation I provided you and preformed a miracle when the big bang happened.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math doesn't prove God. Why doesn't everyone know that equasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not really true. Mr. Gödel made a mathematical prove of god - and this prove is not wrong so it should be still true for everyone who has to do with science. But nearly no one - or indeed no one - understands what this genius said there. A short time ago some computer scientists found out that this prove is correct by producing a PC-program what tested the formal correctness of this prove again. The mathematics (=a special form of logical notation) Gödl used knows nearly no one very good - specially not in the perfect way Goedel used mathematics. But I would say this prove is not important for Christians, because it is somehow a prove without love and life. It are only some symbols on paper. Nevertheless would the correct interpretation of the philosophy of science now force every scientist to believe in god on reasons of mathematics and science, because the existance of god is proven not to be wrong and what's not wrong is definetelly true in science. But this would hurt on the other side the freedom of religion in a simliar way like you try to hurt the freedom of religion of scientists by making science itselve to a kind of substitute of religion and a kind of [anti-]theology of your atheistic belief.
> 
> 
> PS: He refers to the field equations of Einstein - see: Einstein field equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have terrible taste in music.  Just terrible.  Lol.
Click to expand...


Hmmm ...


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ... Or you're just another animal that lives and dies.
> 
> Just be glad you have a 50+ year lifespan, you live in this era and not back when Jesus was alive, you live in a good country and you are the smartest animal on this planet.
> 
> A priest on TV today said you should consider me your Goliath. Without him who would Sampson have been?



David fought against Goliath - not Mr. Simson. Mr. Simson works in a nuclear power plant. And the USA is comparable more with a Goliath under all other nations - what helps nothing if god is not with you.


----------



## the_human_being

I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.


----------



## the_human_being

Applying Probabilities to Evolution


http://math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html

Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution

Those Typing Monkeys Don't Prove Evolution

Evolution and Mathematics


----------



## Hollie

the_human_being said:


> Applying Probabilities to Evolution
> 
> 
> http://math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
> 
> Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
> 
> Those Typing Monkeys Don't Prove Evolution
> 
> Evolution and Mathematics



Obviously you must realize that one or more of your link are to the most notoriously silly religious whack-jobs on the planet: Henry Morris.


----------



## Hollie

the_human_being said:


> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.


What intelligence in the chaos would that be?

I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.


----------



## the_human_being

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying Probabilities to Evolution
> 
> 
> http://math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
> 
> Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
> 
> Those Typing Monkeys Don't Prove Evolution
> 
> Evolution and Mathematics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you must realize that one or more of your link are to the most notoriously silly religious whack-jobs on the planet: Henry Morris.
Click to expand...


Of course if one cannot dispute the math then attack the source. Why not give me the product of your own mathematical probability of a single cell organism mutating into a four celled organism?  I'll await your answer since you are the scientific one here.


----------



## Hollie

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying Probabilities to Evolution
> 
> 
> http://math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
> 
> Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
> 
> Those Typing Monkeys Don't Prove Evolution
> 
> Evolution and Mathematics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you must realize that one or more of your link are to the most notoriously silly religious whack-jobs on the planet: Henry Morris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course if one cannot dispute the math then attack the source. Why not give me the product of your own mathematical probability of a single cell organism mutating into a four celled organism?  I'll await your answer since you are the scientific one here.
Click to expand...

The silly ID'iot creationism math has been refuted more tones than Aidan recall.

Evolution and Chance

I was hoping you can give us the math that defines supernatural gods? Not just any of the gods but your particular, partisan gods. Supernatural math, perhaps?


----------



## the_human_being

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying Probabilities to Evolution
> 
> 
> http://math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
> 
> Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
> 
> Those Typing Monkeys Don't Prove Evolution
> 
> Evolution and Mathematics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you must realize that one or more of your link are to the most notoriously silly religious whack-jobs on the planet: Henry Morris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course if one cannot dispute the math then attack the source. Why not give me the product of your own mathematical probability of a single cell organism mutating into a four celled organism?  I'll await your answer since you are the scientific one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The silly ID'iot creationism math has been refuted more tones than Aidan recall.
> 
> Evolution and Chance
> 
> I was hoping you can give us the math that defines supernatural gods? Not just any of the gods but your particular, partisan gods. Supernatural math, perhaps?
Click to expand...


I'm not a party to your "gods" discussion if you would take notice. I do not fault you for not responding directly to my math challenge. Most people lack education in probability analysis. That's not their fault at all it's just that their education and occupation did not require advanced mathematical studies. Actually, I have discovered that most folks really have very limited study in any of the scientific fields. Many hold degrees in the Liberal Arts arena and have only read some info from some web site or heard a Liberal college professor attempt to sound scientific. Those of us who actually work in fields such as engineering know better though.


----------



## the_human_being

Shall we put forth a little honesty here?  Intelligence has little at all to do with education. Most people are considered to be educated but are they actually intelligent?  In fact, are most people really educated?  I went to college and learned electrical engineering. I also hold a minor in mathematics. Does this make me intelligent?  Not really. I am good at my vocation. I know nothing about astronomy or medicine or about many other subjects other than as a layman. There are certainly reputable people on all sides of an issue. The father of modern rocketry was a Christian and engaged in prayer to the Christian God. He was hardly considered a fool by any recognized standard. Was he intelligent or was he simply educated in his particular field?  It's not my call to make. I respect his beliefs and that he was the foremost authority in modern rocketry. Were I an atheist, I would never accuse him of being a fool. There are many reputable people who are atheists. Many are more educated in their own right than am I. I don't call them ignorant either. There is ample room for everyone.


----------



## Hollie

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying Probabilities to Evolution
> 
> 
> http://math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
> 
> Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
> 
> Those Typing Monkeys Don't Prove Evolution
> 
> Evolution and Mathematics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you must realize that one or more of your link are to the most notoriously silly religious whack-jobs on the planet: Henry Morris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course if one cannot dispute the math then attack the source. Why not give me the product of your own mathematical probability of a single cell organism mutating into a four celled organism?  I'll await your answer since you are the scientific one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The silly ID'iot creationism math has been refuted more tones than Aidan recall.
> 
> Evolution and Chance
> 
> I was hoping you can give us the math that defines supernatural gods? Not just any of the gods but your particular, partisan gods. Supernatural math, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a party to your "gods" discussion if you would take notice. I do not fault you for not responding directly to my math challenge. Most people lack education in probability analysis. That's not their fault at all it's just that their education and occupation did not require advanced mathematical studies. Actually, I have discovered that most folks really have very limited study in any of the scientific fields. Many hold degrees in the Liberal Arts arena and have only read some info from some web site or heard a Liberal college professor attempt to sound scientific. Those of us who actually work in fields such as engineering know better though.
Click to expand...

You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to blogs hosted by people who have no where else to post their tripe but ID'iot creation websites.

You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to people's blogs. 

Let's take a look at your first link. It's written by a student who later identifies an article he submitted to the Disco'tute. As we know, the Disco'tute is one of many ID'iot creationist warehouses for charlatans / religious fundamentalists.

Your second link is sillier than the first. We're directed to the musings of a knucklehead, Robert Kehr.

*Webster Kehr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Webster Kehr* (born 7 October 1946 in Jefferson City, Missouri) is an amateur American author and promoter. Claiming since 2002 to be a sort of "cancer researcher (of natural medicine)," he holds a belief in so-called creation science and maintains a website promoting cancer quackery and discouraging cancer patients from seeking medical health care.[1] Kehr is also a conspiracy theorist who claims that the medical profession and drug companies are deliberately suppressing so-called cures for cancer.[2


It just gets worse from there. How it is you're not embarrassed beyond words to post links to such piffle is remarkable.


----------



## the_human_being

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applying Probabilities to Evolution
> 
> 
> http://math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
> 
> Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
> 
> Those Typing Monkeys Don't Prove Evolution
> 
> Evolution and Mathematics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you must realize that one or more of your link are to the most notoriously silly religious whack-jobs on the planet: Henry Morris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course if one cannot dispute the math then attack the source. Why not give me the product of your own mathematical probability of a single cell organism mutating into a four celled organism?  I'll await your answer since you are the scientific one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The silly ID'iot creationism math has been refuted more tones than Aidan recall.
> 
> Evolution and Chance
> 
> I was hoping you can give us the math that defines supernatural gods? Not just any of the gods but your particular, partisan gods. Supernatural math, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a party to your "gods" discussion if you would take notice. I do not fault you for not responding directly to my math challenge. Most people lack education in probability analysis. That's not their fault at all it's just that their education and occupation did not require advanced mathematical studies. Actually, I have discovered that most folks really have very limited study in any of the scientific fields. Many hold degrees in the Liberal Arts arena and have only read some info from some web site or heard a Liberal college professor attempt to sound scientific. Those of us who actually work in fields such as engineering know better though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to blogs hosted by people who have no where else to post their tripe but ID'iot creation websites.
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to people's blogs.
> 
> Let's take a look at your first link. It's written by a student who later identifies an article he submitted to the Disco'tute. As we know, the Disco'tute is one of many ID'iot creationist warehouses for charlatans / religious fundamentalists.
> 
> Your second link is sillier than the first. We're directed to the musings of a knucklehead, Robert Kehr.
> 
> *Webster Kehr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Robert Webster Kehr* (born 7 October 1946 in Jefferson City, Missouri) is an amateur American author and promoter. Claiming since 2002 to be a sort of "cancer researcher (of natural medicine)," he holds a belief in so-called creation science and maintains a website promoting cancer quackery and discouraging cancer patients from seeking medical health care.[1] Kehr is also a conspiracy theorist who claims that the medical profession and drug companies are deliberately suppressing so-called cures for cancer.[2
> 
> 
> It just gets worse from there. How it is you're not embarrassed beyond words to post links to such piffle is remarkable.
Click to expand...


No. What is much worse is the fact that you take it upon yourself to call people ignorant who actually have more education and life experiences than you do. Yours is simple bigotry at its finest. What are your credentials that afford you the right to call anyone ignorant?


----------



## Hollie

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you must realize that one or more of your link are to the most notoriously silly religious whack-jobs on the planet: Henry Morris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course if one cannot dispute the math then attack the source. Why not give me the product of your own mathematical probability of a single cell organism mutating into a four celled organism?  I'll await your answer since you are the scientific one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The silly ID'iot creationism math has been refuted more tones than Aidan recall.
> 
> Evolution and Chance
> 
> I was hoping you can give us the math that defines supernatural gods? Not just any of the gods but your particular, partisan gods. Supernatural math, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a party to your "gods" discussion if you would take notice. I do not fault you for not responding directly to my math challenge. Most people lack education in probability analysis. That's not their fault at all it's just that their education and occupation did not require advanced mathematical studies. Actually, I have discovered that most folks really have very limited study in any of the scientific fields. Many hold degrees in the Liberal Arts arena and have only read some info from some web site or heard a Liberal college professor attempt to sound scientific. Those of us who actually work in fields such as engineering know better though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to blogs hosted by people who have no where else to post their tripe but ID'iot creation websites.
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to people's blogs.
> 
> Let's take a look at your first link. It's written by a student who later identifies an article he submitted to the Disco'tute. As we know, the Disco'tute is one of many ID'iot creationist warehouses for charlatans / religious fundamentalists.
> 
> Your second link is sillier than the first. We're directed to the musings of a knucklehead, Robert Kehr.
> 
> *Webster Kehr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Robert Webster Kehr* (born 7 October 1946 in Jefferson City, Missouri) is an amateur American author and promoter. Claiming since 2002 to be a sort of "cancer researcher (of natural medicine)," he holds a belief in so-called creation science and maintains a website promoting cancer quackery and discouraging cancer patients from seeking medical health care.[1] Kehr is also a conspiracy theorist who claims that the medical profession and drug companies are deliberately suppressing so-called cures for cancer.[2
> 
> 
> It just gets worse from there. How it is you're not embarrassed beyond words to post links to such piffle is remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What is much worse is the fact that you take it upon yourself to call people ignorant who actually have more education and life experiences than you do. Yours is simple bigotry at its finest. What are your credentials that afford you the right to call anyone ignorant?
Click to expand...

It can't be anything but ignorance that would cause you to offer wacky conspiracy theorists to support your arguments for gods.


----------



## the_human_being

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course if one cannot dispute the math then attack the source. Why not give me the product of your own mathematical probability of a single cell organism mutating into a four celled organism?  I'll await your answer since you are the scientific one here.
> 
> 
> 
> The silly ID'iot creationism math has been refuted more tones than Aidan recall.
> 
> Evolution and Chance
> 
> I was hoping you can give us the math that defines supernatural gods? Not just any of the gods but your particular, partisan gods. Supernatural math, perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a party to your "gods" discussion if you would take notice. I do not fault you for not responding directly to my math challenge. Most people lack education in probability analysis. That's not their fault at all it's just that their education and occupation did not require advanced mathematical studies. Actually, I have discovered that most folks really have very limited study in any of the scientific fields. Many hold degrees in the Liberal Arts arena and have only read some info from some web site or heard a Liberal college professor attempt to sound scientific. Those of us who actually work in fields such as engineering know better though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to blogs hosted by people who have no where else to post their tripe but ID'iot creation websites.
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to people's blogs.
> 
> Let's take a look at your first link. It's written by a student who later identifies an article he submitted to the Disco'tute. As we know, the Disco'tute is one of many ID'iot creationist warehouses for charlatans / religious fundamentalists.
> 
> Your second link is sillier than the first. We're directed to the musings of a knucklehead, Robert Kehr.
> 
> *Webster Kehr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Robert Webster Kehr* (born 7 October 1946 in Jefferson City, Missouri) is an amateur American author and promoter. Claiming since 2002 to be a sort of "cancer researcher (of natural medicine)," he holds a belief in so-called creation science and maintains a website promoting cancer quackery and discouraging cancer patients from seeking medical health care.[1] Kehr is also a conspiracy theorist who claims that the medical profession and drug companies are deliberately suppressing so-called cures for cancer.[2
> 
> 
> It just gets worse from there. How it is you're not embarrassed beyond words to post links to such piffle is remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What is much worse is the fact that you take it upon yourself to call people ignorant who actually have more education and life experiences than you do. Yours is simple bigotry at its finest. What are your credentials that afford you the right to call anyone ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can't be anything but ignorance that would cause you to offer wacky conspiracy theorists to support your arguments for gods.
Click to expand...


Well, we all simply cannot be as intelligent as you deem yourself to be. Most of us are not gifted with the bigot trait.  I don't know why I engage you since in all probability, you don't even exist:


----------



## Hollie

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silly ID'iot creationism math has been refuted more tones than Aidan recall.
> 
> Evolution and Chance
> 
> I was hoping you can give us the math that defines supernatural gods? Not just any of the gods but your particular, partisan gods. Supernatural math, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a party to your "gods" discussion if you would take notice. I do not fault you for not responding directly to my math challenge. Most people lack education in probability analysis. That's not their fault at all it's just that their education and occupation did not require advanced mathematical studies. Actually, I have discovered that most folks really have very limited study in any of the scientific fields. Many hold degrees in the Liberal Arts arena and have only read some info from some web site or heard a Liberal college professor attempt to sound scientific. Those of us who actually work in fields such as engineering know better though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to blogs hosted by people who have no where else to post their tripe but ID'iot creation websites.
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to people's blogs.
> 
> Let's take a look at your first link. It's written by a student who later identifies an article he submitted to the Disco'tute. As we know, the Disco'tute is one of many ID'iot creationist warehouses for charlatans / religious fundamentalists.
> 
> Your second link is sillier than the first. We're directed to the musings of a knucklehead, Robert Kehr.
> 
> *Webster Kehr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Robert Webster Kehr* (born 7 October 1946 in Jefferson City, Missouri) is an amateur American author and promoter. Claiming since 2002 to be a sort of "cancer researcher (of natural medicine)," he holds a belief in so-called creation science and maintains a website promoting cancer quackery and discouraging cancer patients from seeking medical health care.[1] Kehr is also a conspiracy theorist who claims that the medical profession and drug companies are deliberately suppressing so-called cures for cancer.[2
> 
> 
> It just gets worse from there. How it is you're not embarrassed beyond words to post links to such piffle is remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What is much worse is the fact that you take it upon yourself to call people ignorant who actually have more education and life experiences than you do. Yours is simple bigotry at its finest. What are your credentials that afford you the right to call anyone ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can't be anything but ignorance that would cause you to offer wacky conspiracy theorists to support your arguments for gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we all simply cannot be as intelligent as you deem yourself to be. Most of us are not gifted with the bigot trait.  I don't know why I engage you since in all probability, you don't even exist:
> 
> View attachment 69271
Click to expand...


Funny stuff. It's obvious where you scour this cut and paste material from.

Typical ID'iot creationist piffle.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Or you're just another animal that lives and dies.
> 
> Just be glad you have a 50+ year lifespan, you live in this era and not back when Jesus was alive, you live in a good country and you are the smartest animal on this planet.
> 
> A priest on TV today said you should consider me your Goliath. Without him who would Sampson have been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David fought against Goliath - not Mr. Simson. Mr. Simson works in a nuclear power plant. And the USA is comparable more with a Goliath under all other nations - what helps nothing if god is not with you.
Click to expand...

Do you miss the point or argue with your preachers when they try to make a point? This message came from a televangelist on TV this morning.

The point he was trying to make is without brutis there is no Popeye. I'm your brutis. In other words, don't let me stop you from being who you are. And I don't want to hurt good Christians. I figure anyone coming to this topic is asking for it. This is the internet after all.

And I truly believe We'd be better off without religion. America and Europe are pretty secular nice societies. We have too many religious nuts but freedom from religion is nice. Now compare that with the middle East where they are all about religion. I'd take the freedom from religion society anyday and so would you.

If we woke up tomorrow and no one ever heard about God would we have not figured out its not right to cover thy neighbors wife? Seems like a easy rule to follow.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silly ID'iot creationism math has been refuted more tones than Aidan recall.
> 
> Evolution and Chance
> 
> I was hoping you can give us the math that defines supernatural gods? Not just any of the gods but your particular, partisan gods. Supernatural math, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a party to your "gods" discussion if you would take notice. I do not fault you for not responding directly to my math challenge. Most people lack education in probability analysis. That's not their fault at all it's just that their education and occupation did not require advanced mathematical studies. Actually, I have discovered that most folks really have very limited study in any of the scientific fields. Many hold degrees in the Liberal Arts arena and have only read some info from some web site or heard a Liberal college professor attempt to sound scientific. Those of us who actually work in fields such as engineering know better though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to blogs hosted by people who have no where else to post their tripe but ID'iot creation websites.
> 
> You offered no math challenge. You simply cut and pasted links to people's blogs.
> 
> Let's take a look at your first link. It's written by a student who later identifies an article he submitted to the Disco'tute. As we know, the Disco'tute is one of many ID'iot creationist warehouses for charlatans / religious fundamentalists.
> 
> Your second link is sillier than the first. We're directed to the musings of a knucklehead, Robert Kehr.
> 
> *Webster Kehr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Robert Webster Kehr* (born 7 October 1946 in Jefferson City, Missouri) is an amateur American author and promoter. Claiming since 2002 to be a sort of "cancer researcher (of natural medicine)," he holds a belief in so-called creation science and maintains a website promoting cancer quackery and discouraging cancer patients from seeking medical health care.[1] Kehr is also a conspiracy theorist who claims that the medical profession and drug companies are deliberately suppressing so-called cures for cancer.[2
> 
> 
> It just gets worse from there. How it is you're not embarrassed beyond words to post links to such piffle is remarkable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. What is much worse is the fact that you take it upon yourself to call people ignorant who actually have more education and life experiences than you do. Yours is simple bigotry at its finest. What are your credentials that afford you the right to call anyone ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can't be anything but ignorance that would cause you to offer wacky conspiracy theorists to support your arguments for gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we all simply cannot be as intelligent as you deem yourself to be. Most of us are not gifted with the bigot trait.  I don't know why I engage you since in all probability, you don't even exist:
> 
> View attachment 69271
Click to expand...

But it's probably happening around every star. And life already existed on Mars and Venus. You'll see. We only just begun understanding our universe. 

The 5 most common elements in the universe are hydrogen helium oxygen carbon and neon. When stars blow up they send out the elements that turn into planets moons meteors comets asteroids etc. Even the protean amino acids molds and single organisms all come from the inside of stars. That means you come from a star. That's right! A star died so you could live. Billions of years after the big bang.

The truth is so much better


----------



## MaryL

If god didn't exist, the universe would mange to get by just fine. It has  so far. Islamic mass murdering hoodoo Islam came along, they get a free pass on logic or common sense. All bets are off.


----------



## BreezeWood

the_human_being said:


> Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is a virtual impossibility,



_*
to mutate into a two cell organism is a virtual impossibility ...*_


it may be "virtually impossible" irregardless on our planet no such organism has yet materialized. all organisms are either single celled or mutisubdivided single celled organisms, no multidisimilar celled organism are in existence.

the step from singlecelled organism to subdivided cellular organisms uses the single cell for its building block and is the same in both instances.

.


----------



## sealybobo

MaryL said:


> If god didn't exist, the universe would mange to get by just fine. It has  so far. Islamic mass murdering hoodoo Islam came along, they get a free pass on logic or common sense. All bets are off.


I think what we need to establish that all kids know where we came from. Im going to repeat a rant because I want to know what it is they don't understand or what they disagree with.

Now I know what I'm about to say is only the common belief of science but this is why science and old school religions clash. Religion doesn't accept reality.

For example, we all come from stars that died. We must have. Maybe a comet brought the proteans or mold that led to all life as we know.

Or that we evolved and all life has a common ancestor. 

If you believe God waved his hand and produced fully functional dinosaurs or humans or chicken then that's basically believing our ancestors who didn't know shit back then. No excuse now. 

And I really think the truth is so much better. This faith/fear/mind control is not good for evolving the mind faster. Imagine a much smarter citizens on this planet. Would we still have such obviously corrupt political system?


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is a virtual impossibility,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> to mutate into a two cell organism is a virtual impossibility ...*_
> 
> 
> it may be "virtually impossible" irregardless on our planet no such organism has yet materialized. all organisms are either single celled or mutisubdivided single celled organisms, no multidisimilar celled organism are in existence.
> 
> the step from singlecelled organism to subdivided cellular organisms uses the single cell for its building block and is the same in both instances.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

But isn't it amazing when it happens?

Every star you see either had life like us billions of years ago, has it now or will billions of years from now


----------



## sealybobo

Mix hydrogen helium oxygen carbon neon and give it time


----------



## MaryL

Who made god? Self starting and always existed? Pulled himself up by the bootstraps? God pulled himself out of a hat? What?


----------



## sealybobo

MaryL said:


> Who made god? Self starting and always existed? Pulled himself up by the bootstraps? God pulled himself out of a hat? What?


There's simply no need for it other than emotional. Maybe we needed it when we were less evolved ignorant afraid unaware and new but now it seems as if it's outliving it's usefulness. Did you watch the ten commandments last night? And this is the religious story that led to our religious story? If I'm not buying that story why would I buy our story?

I'm supposed to believe God saved the Jews from Pharaoh but stood and watched Hitler do what he did?


----------



## sealybobo

No way I'm brainwashing my kids with a lie I don't even believe myself. I'll tell them people believe there is a God but I won't scare them with any hell stories. We will discuss how there could be but other than stories, no one has really seen it. Organized religions are just big business' but I'll let them decide because who am I to tell him and her what's the truth. The truth is I don't know. Keep looking.


----------



## sealybobo

MaryL said:


> Who made god? Self starting and always existed? Pulled himself up by the bootstraps? God pulled himself out of a hat? What?


Wouldn't you agree anyone who believes a religion is probably a much more controllable person? Much more easily lied to? If they'll accept the unbelievable on faith, what won't they believe?


----------



## MaryL

sealybobo said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made god? Self starting and always existed? Pulled himself up by the bootstraps? God pulled himself out of a hat? What?
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't you agree anyone who believes a religion is probably a much more controllable person? Much more easily lied to? If they'll accept the unbelievable on faith, what won't they believe?
Click to expand...

Religion makes me wary. Hence the term "drink the kool-aid". Islam has that down pat. Islam, suicide cells. Death to America, Islam means SUBMISSION. Submit my ass.


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
Click to expand...


Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.

Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"



> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.



I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.
> 
> Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.
Click to expand...

You seem insane, all over the place, irrational, in short a mad man.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.
> 
> Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem insane, all over the place, irrational, in short a mad man.
Click to expand...


I don't see your problem. In the moment my heart is in Pakistan where so many Christians were murdered from unbelievers.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.
> 
> Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem insane, all over the place, irrational, in short a mad man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see your problem. In the moment my heart is in Pakistan where so many Christians were murdered from unbelievers.
Click to expand...


Par for the course for the so-called "religious" people.  They have always been fighting and killing one another.  Sick.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's logical proof or rationalism.
> 
> Descartes based it on how humans admire perfection.
> 
> It's not I that do not have a clue.  You'll understand one day.
> 
> To me, it's more who gets the last laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.
> 
> You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean when you take a step back and look at the facts?  There is more evidence that God exists.  It helps to have a little faith.
> 
> And how can you say someone who has lasted all these years suggests ignorance?  Science, while it eventually comes to the truth, is mostly wrong.  Science ends up backing the Bible.  What other ignorance are you referring to besides science?
> 
> And who is lying to you?  Descartes?  Surely, his, "I think, therefore I am" has stood the test of time.  His proof of God lies in striving for perfection.  That means getting 100% correct on the test.  Winning.  Doing your best since we're not perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more evidence that God exists. FALSE
> It helps to have a little faith. TRUE
> Science is mostly wrong FALSE
> Science ends up backing the bible FALSE
> The rest is just nonsense.  Zero extra credit for that last part.
> 
> So you got 1 out of 4 wrong.  You didn't get even close to 100% on the test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.
> 
> The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
Click to expand...


That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)

Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.

Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.

The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.

This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems. 

GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.

These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.


People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.
> 
> Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem insane, all over the place, irrational, in short a mad man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see your problem. In the moment my heart is in Pakistan where so many Christians were murdered from unbelievers.
Click to expand...

Why do 98% of the people in Pakistan let 2% kill Christians?



zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.
> 
> Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem insane, all over the place, irrational, in short a mad man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see your problem. In the moment my heart is in Pakistan where so many Christians were murdered from unbelievers.
Click to expand...


The state *religion in Pakistan* is Islam, which is practiced by 98% of the 195,343,000 people of the nation.

I would guess you are confusing unbelievers with people who believe in other gods.  You mean they don't believe your religion?  Because make no mistake, they believe in God.  In fact they are more sure of its existence than you.  They walk around all day allah akbar.  They pray to it 7 times a day.  Do you?

In fact, if 98% of Pakistan believe in Allah, I'm guessing some of the 2% left over are the Christians who you are referring to.  So maybe 1% of Pakistan agrees with me.  99% agrees with you.  Only difference is they believe in a different god.  This is what wars start over.  This is why religion has to go.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you take a step back and look at all the facts, it seems that God is just the ignorant answer to how we got here. We didn't know shit when we came to that conclusion. The fact is we don't know. I don't have a problem with people who believe God exists but admit they don't know. I just don't like being lied to.
> 
> You don't believe all the other religions are real, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean when you take a step back and look at the facts?  There is more evidence that God exists.  It helps to have a little faith.
> 
> And how can you say someone who has lasted all these years suggests ignorance?  Science, while it eventually comes to the truth, is mostly wrong.  Science ends up backing the Bible.  What other ignorance are you referring to besides science?
> 
> And who is lying to you?  Descartes?  Surely, his, "I think, therefore I am" has stood the test of time.  His proof of God lies in striving for perfection.  That means getting 100% correct on the test.  Winning.  Doing your best since we're not perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more evidence that God exists. FALSE
> It helps to have a little faith. TRUE
> Science is mostly wrong FALSE
> Science ends up backing the bible FALSE
> The rest is just nonsense.  Zero extra credit for that last part.
> 
> So you got 1 out of 4 wrong.  You didn't get even close to 100% on the test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.
> 
> The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
Click to expand...

This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.


----------



## emilynghiem

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
Click to expand...


Hi zaangalewa I agree with your point that the death on the cross is a symbol of justice.
The point is to break the cycle of injustice and war, and bring lasting peace and justice by healing and RESTORING good faith relations
between neighbors, nations and tribes world wide.

This is what is meant by receiving divine forgiveness and GRACE to bring on this healing and transformation,
from a broken corrupted world of social ills to rebirth as children of the Kingdom of God or heaven on earth.

So the key is forgiveness.
Where you see people reaching out with compassion and charity,
inclusion and not rejection, correction and healing instead of judgment or punishment,
that is the path of Restorative Justice that Christ Jesus represents and fulfills.

the death on the cross was one stage of this process.
the rising and return is what we will see when these
past patterns are overcome and we end the cause of war, ills and suffering.

Peace be unto you and may God abundantly
multiple all blessings you receive and share
with others. Salaam Malaikum and Amen!


----------



## ChrisL

emilynghiem said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi zaangalewa I agree with your point that the death on the cross is a symbol of justice.
> The point is to break the cycle of injustice and war, and bring lasting peace and justice by healing and RESTORING good faith relations
> between neighbors, nations and tribes world wide.
> 
> This is what is meant by receiving divine forgiveness and GRACE to bring on this healing and transformation,
> from a broken corrupted world of social ills to rebirth as children of the Kingdom of God or heaven on earth.
> 
> So the key is forgiveness.
> Where you see people reaching out with compassion and charity,
> inclusion and not rejection, correction and healing instead of judgment or punishment,
> that is the path of Restorative Justice that Christ Jesus represents and fulfills.
> 
> the death on the cross was one stage of this process.
> the rising and return is what we will see when these
> past patterns are overcome and we end the cause of war, ills and suffering.
> 
> Peace be unto you and may God abundantly
> multiple all blessings you receive and share
> with others. Salaam Malaikum and Amen!
Click to expand...


There will never be "peace" if there are competing religions.  Just look to history and the present times.  Religion was invented to control people.  That is quite obvious.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> A priest on TV today said you should consider me your Goliath. Without him who would Sampson have been?



lol....I think you mean David and goliath. 

Samson and Goliath was an animated children's  TV show.


----------



## emilynghiem

ChrisL said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi zaangalewa I agree with your point that the death on the cross is a symbol of justice.
> The point is to break the cycle of injustice and war, and bring lasting peace and justice by healing and RESTORING good faith relations
> between neighbors, nations and tribes world wide.
> 
> This is what is meant by receiving divine forgiveness and GRACE to bring on this healing and transformation,
> from a broken corrupted world of social ills to rebirth as children of the Kingdom of God or heaven on earth.
> 
> So the key is forgiveness.
> Where you see people reaching out with compassion and charity,
> inclusion and not rejection, correction and healing instead of judgment or punishment,
> that is the path of Restorative Justice that Christ Jesus represents and fulfills.
> 
> the death on the cross was one stage of this process.
> the rising and return is what we will see when these
> past patterns are overcome and we end the cause of war, ills and suffering.
> 
> Peace be unto you and may God abundantly
> multiple all blessings you receive and share
> with others. Salaam Malaikum and Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will never be "peace" if there are competing religions.  Just look to history and the present times.  Religion was invented to control people.  That is quite obvious.
Click to expand...


ChrisL
I'd say the root problem is fear and unforgiveness.
(See MLK quote on fear as the root cause of the whole chain of reactions:

_*“Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don’t know each other; they don’t know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.”*_
_*10 Brilliant Quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. That You Rarely Hear*_

You can have separate competing teams and nations at the Olympics and still be peaceful and good sports.

What messes things up is when people try to undercut and harm each other.
When school team rivalry becomes bullying and jealousy out of ill will, instead of holding good will for all, then it goes sour.

There used to be a video story posted at Rachel's Challenge
about two schools with a rivalry that disrupted in vandalism and bullying
until this program changed how they perceived and interacted with each other.

So kindness and the commitment to healthy relations to build communities
can change this. Starting with local people and working globally. (remember Buckminster Fuller's vision to Think Globally, Act Locally, whatever we do individually collectively changes the rest of the world in a chain reaction, also the concept behind Rachel's challenge
that has ended bullying and saved teen's lives at schools across the nation.)

You can still compete, but in constructive ways to be better, not to bring other people down.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.
> 
> Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem insane, all over the place, irrational, in short a mad man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see your problem. In the moment my heart is in Pakistan where so many Christians were murdered from unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do 98% of the people in Pakistan let 2% kill Christians?
Click to expand...


You are a religious extremist on your own. You also try to wipe the christian religion from this planet. So you should know how this unbelievers are thinking. Wether someone argues with god or against god if he likes to force others to do his own personal will or the will of his group of people is for me personally - you got it: completly unimportant.

It was by the way the english speaking world which created the state Pakistan in one of the most absurde actions history ever saw.


> ... The state *religion in Pakistan* is Islam, which is practiced by 98% of the 195,343,000 people of the nation.
> 
> I would guess you are confusing unbelievers with people who believe in other gods.  You mean they don't believe your religion?  Because make no mistake, they believe in God.  In fact they are more sure of its existence than you.  They walk around all day allah akbar.  They pray to it 7 times a day.  Do you?
> 
> In fact, if 98% of Pakistan believe in Allah, I'm guessing some of the 2% left over are the Christians who you are referring to.  So maybe 1% of Pakistan agrees with me.  99% agrees with you.  Only difference is they believe in a different god.  This is what wars start over.  This is why religion has to go.



If you think so, enemy mine.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the very intelligence present in the chaos absolutely fascinating. Though the mathematical possibility of even a single cell organism surviving long enough to mutate into a two cell organism is  a virtual impossibility, the very premise that somehow not only did a multi-celled organism crawl forth from that cesspool but that in reality two very complicated and advanced multi-celled organisms must had crawled forth at about the very same time. Since the survival of any species must depend upon the intercourse between both a male and a  female organism then both male and female humans, cattle, dogs, cats, elephants, rodents, hippos, etc., must have all crawled out of that same slime pit. Yes indeed, there must have been some smarts in that chaos else there might have only been male organisms crawl forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.
> 
> Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem insane, all over the place, irrational, in short a mad man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see your problem. In the moment my heart is in Pakistan where so many Christians were murdered from unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Par for the course for the so-called "religious" people.  They have always been fighting and killing one another.  Sick.
Click to expand...


I don't fight against Muslims. Some Muslims are even very good friends. I have to take care not to give anyone any information about them, because they are also in danger to be murdered from this unbelievers, who try to be murderers in the name of god - what's more than only a paradox.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean when you take a step back and look at the facts?  There is more evidence that God exists.  It helps to have a little faith.
> 
> And how can you say someone who has lasted all these years suggests ignorance?  Science, while it eventually comes to the truth, is mostly wrong.  Science ends up backing the Bible.  What other ignorance are you referring to besides science?
> 
> And who is lying to you?  Descartes?  Surely, his, "I think, therefore I am" has stood the test of time.  His proof of God lies in striving for perfection.  That means getting 100% correct on the test.  Winning.  Doing your best since we're not perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> There is more evidence that God exists. FALSE
> It helps to have a little faith. TRUE
> Science is mostly wrong FALSE
> Science ends up backing the bible FALSE
> The rest is just nonsense.  Zero extra credit for that last part.
> 
> So you got 1 out of 4 wrong.  You didn't get even close to 100% on the test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.
> 
> The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
Click to expand...


Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What intelligence in the chaos would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.
> 
> Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect your math is derived from the website Answers in Genesis which  suggests your math is the religious fundie version of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem insane, all over the place, irrational, in short a mad man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see your problem. In the moment my heart is in Pakistan where so many Christians were murdered from unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Par for the course for the so-called "religious" people.  They have always been fighting and killing one another.  Sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't fight against Muslims. Some Muslims are even very good friends. I have to take care not to give anyone any information about them, because they are also in danger to be murdered from this unbelievers, who try to be murderers in the name of god - what's more than only a paradox.
Click to expand...

You and James blond have lost it. Like James said, you and I are done.

As long as future human isn't this dumb I'll be happy. But religion isn't done holding us back not for another 500-1000 years. Maybe it'll set us back to the stone age again or the dark ages. Have you ever watched the 2 Cosmos Series'? They are both much watch's. Even you can be saved.....from stupidity.


----------



## james bond

So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.


It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.

I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.


----------



## zaangalewa

emilynghiem said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi zaangalewa I agree with your point that the death on the cross is a symbol of justice.
Click to expand...


I never said so: I said the cross itselve is also a symbol for a [perverted] human justice.



> The point is to break the cycle of injustice and war, and bring lasting peace and justice by healing and RESTORING good faith relations
> between neighbors, nations and tribes world wide.
> 
> This is what is meant by receiving divine forgiveness and GRACE to bring on this healing and transformation,
> from a broken corrupted world of social ills to rebirth as children of the Kingdom of God or heaven on earth.
> 
> So the key is forgiveness.



I don't remember that I ever forgave anyone anything. The people who need forgiveness don't ask - and I am not unhappy about.



> Where you see people reaching out with compassion and charity,
> inclusion and not rejection, correction and healing instead of judgment or punishment,



I agree - rejection, correction and healing are very important steps. The best accident is the accident that never happened. And the good deeds in context with this are nearly always only invisible, because normally we don't know if a terrible thing did not happen and we were the reason for. Only god knows.



> that is the path of Restorative Justice that Christ Jesus represents and fulfills.
> 
> the death on the cross was one stage of this process.
> the rising and return is what we will see when these
> past patterns are overcome and we end the cause of war, ills and suffering.
> 
> Peace be unto you and may God abundantly
> multiple all blessings you receive and share
> with others. Salaam Malaikum and Amen!



Salaam


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.


You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You detractors to the big bang keep referring to an equilibrium that was supposed to have existed.
> 
> That assumption is stupid.  No scientists theory I have seen suggested that the precursor to our universe, the "ball", was just sitting around for some unspecified period of our time before the bang. It makes more sense to me that the so called "ball" was building all along with some unknown force applied to this incomplete "ball" to keep it in check.  At some point all hell broke loose as the "ball" reached a certain point outside the density/pressure needed to contain it.   It could not be contained just as the unknown force reached it's opposite and relative decreasing strength needed to contain the "ball".
> 
> This theory could be compared to having a bottle of compressed gas sent upwards while more and more pressure is added to the bottle on the inside of the cylinder and the atmospheric pressure is steadily decreasing as the cylinder goes skyward.  At some point in altitude ascended to the cylinder explodes because the strength to hold it intact is not enough.
> 
> That is just one possibility of how our current universe could have started to expand.  You can see I did not need to refer to any god like creature in my theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine all the debree floating around in space before all the stars.  The remains of a previous universe in complete darkness.  Because of gravity and the pull of black holes, everything eventually collects together and then all that "stuff" gets sucked into a black hole and either explodes (big bang) or gets sucked through the black hole and starts a universe on the other side of that black hole, just like our universe was started from the "stuff" that stirred around in a once dead universe in another dimension.
> 
> Or God did it.
> 
> Which answer is simple yet stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only stupid because of your own lack of knowledge, what seems to give you a wrong impression about the stupidity of other people, who try to touch your own frustrated emptyness, intentional ignorance and agressive arrogance.
> 
> If you would use the including "or" (in Latin "vel", logical sign "v"  - in Kantors mathematics called "union" sign "U" - in computer science called "or" sign "or")  then the sentence "_or god did it_" is anything else than stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and makes most people feel comfortable?  God of course.  Its what our simple ancient ancestors thought up.  And whoever created Christianity created the greatest bs story ever told.
> 
> But it doesn't even have to be a great story because people are really stupid.  Just look at Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people fought and fight with god. Lots of them live in the illusion they could not win against god. But they win and crucify him or bring his people in concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau. God dies many deaths. He died this days also in Brussels many deaths caused from people speaking and believing nonsense about this what they think what god is. They forget that no one needs to defend an allmighty entity and they forget: Who kills a human being kills a universe. You are by the way right: God is not existing. He died on a cross today. The god who is is not - and the cross he died on is also a symbol for the justice of human beings. There's no need for god to die with us - he could also break us - but he dies with us, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi zaangalewa I agree with your point that the death on the cross is a symbol of justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said so: I said the cross itselve is also a symbol for a [perverted] human justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is to break the cycle of injustice and war, and bring lasting peace and justice by healing and RESTORING good faith relations
> between neighbors, nations and tribes world wide.
> 
> This is what is meant by receiving divine forgiveness and GRACE to bring on this healing and transformation,
> from a broken corrupted world of social ills to rebirth as children of the Kingdom of God or heaven on earth.
> 
> So the key is forgiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't remember that I ever forgave anyone anything. The people who need forgiveness don't ask - and I am not unhappy about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where you see people reaching out with compassion and charity,
> inclusion and not rejection, correction and healing instead of judgment or punishment,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree - rejection, correction and healing are very important steps. The best accident is the accident that never happened. And the good deeds in context with this are nearly always only invisible, because normally we don't know if a terrible thing did not happen and we were the reason for. Only god knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is the path of Restorative Justice that Christ Jesus represents and fulfills.
> 
> the death on the cross was one stage of this process.
> the rising and return is what we will see when these
> past patterns are overcome and we end the cause of war, ills and suffering.
> 
> Peace be unto you and may God abundantly
> multiple all blessings you receive and share
> with others. Salaam Malaikum and Amen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Salaam
Click to expand...

Do you want to watch a real good video explaining my religion?  It is only 3:33


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chaos is not a destructive power. There's some confusion in this expression. Some seem to see in the chaos something like a kind of heavily exploding destructive entropy. The chaos of the old Greece was a pre-created situation of the universe where all opposits were existing the same time. It was for example as well cold and hot. I remember in in this context: " ... even the eyes of the wisest of the wise were not able to view clearly through the chaos  - but what they saw and reported was this: 'once a shimering light glimmed up in the chaos - this came from Eros, the god of heavenly love, the first of all gods ...'". Indeed chaos seems to be a force of life and not a force of destruction and death. And law and order are often a might of the death - how in case of good friday. But now is Eastermonday.
> 
> Life is per se intelligence. But there are also other forms of the intelligence of the chaos. If mathematics is intelligence - what I doubt about a little, but most people see it in this way - then chaos is a part of this intelligence of mathematics. Mandelbrot or Feigenbaum are for example two prophets of this form of chaos. Very very interesting - and unbelievable beautiful - structures. Life is by the way also always very beautiful. Not to respect life shows the darkness of the souls. And the very astonsihing thing: The chaos that exists in mathematics is existing also in the reality in the same way - so we can see in the chaos in a very good way how our internal spiritual structures are in a kind of identity or fitness with the world all around us. Or with other words: "In the beginning was the logos and god was the logos"
> 
> I never understood the discussion "evolution vs creation" in the english speaking world. Hope my sentences here help to bring a little more light into the chaos of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem insane, all over the place, irrational, in short a mad man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see your problem. In the moment my heart is in Pakistan where so many Christians were murdered from unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Par for the course for the so-called "religious" people.  They have always been fighting and killing one another.  Sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't fight against Muslims. Some Muslims are even very good friends. I have to take care not to give anyone any information about them, because they are also in danger to be murdered from this unbelievers, who try to be murderers in the name of god - what's more than only a paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and James blond have lost it. Like James said, you and I are done.
> 
> As long as future human isn't this dumb I'll be happy. But religion isn't done holding us back not for another 500-1000 years. Maybe it'll set us back to the stone age again or the dark ages. Have you ever watched the 2 Cosmos Series'? They are both much watch's. Even you can be saved.....from stupidity.
Click to expand...


What you say is very easy: "If I would be everyone then I would be able to be happy." But I fear you would not be patient enough to speak with yourselve.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
Click to expand...


Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
costs to health
costs to society

if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.

I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God." 

If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is more evidence that God exists. FALSE
> It helps to have a little faith. TRUE
> Science is mostly wrong FALSE
> Science ends up backing the bible FALSE
> The rest is just nonsense.  Zero extra credit for that last part.
> 
> So you got 1 out of 4 wrong.  You didn't get even close to 100% on the test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.
> 
> The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.
> 
> The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.
> 
> 
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
Click to expand...

I can give you a veritable mountain of proof that genesis is a fairy tail,using a whole aray of scientific data,you give me a statement based in Genesis. Interesting to say the least.


----------



## ChrisL

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.
> 
> The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.
> 
> 
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
Click to expand...


They will grab at anything and claim it is "proof" of some sort.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
Click to expand...


You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.


----------



## forkup

ChrisL said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
Click to expand...

Nah I think, weirdly enough by talking on this forum, problems start when ppl believe their faiths supersede secular laws. It starts giving them the moral right in their heads to try to forcible and even violently change ppl's mind or even kill them. Faith as long as it's a personal choice isn't bad, it's the religious dogma that gets ppl.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
Click to expand...

No offense Emily but if you haven't figured out by now your style of writing is not effective and it is off putting.  I don't even read the shit you say anymore.  You are a broken record.


----------



## sealybobo

forkup said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah I think, weirdly enough by talking on this forum, problems start when ppl believe their faiths supersede secular laws. It starts giving them the moral right in their heads to try to forcible and even violently change ppl's mind or even kill them. Faith as long as it's a personal choice isn't bad, it's the religious dogma that gets ppl.
Click to expand...

For example, people really believe that abortion is murdering a human.  They think it is the same as walking up to a person and shooting them in the head.  They don't realize that life just isn't that precious.  It m


forkup said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah I think, weirdly enough by talking on this forum, problems start when ppl believe their faiths supersede secular laws. It starts giving them the moral right in their heads to try to forcible and even violently change ppl's mind or even kill them. Faith as long as it's a personal choice isn't bad, it's the religious dogma that gets ppl.
Click to expand...

Kind of true because no matter how hard I yell There Is No God I would never want to chop someone's head off because I have no God to offend.

And I don't think believers are going to hell. 

If it weren't for uptight religious people this would just be a fun debate. Some people arguing why they think there is a creator and some arguing why they don't.

The problem is, am I talking to a person who believes moses parted the sea with God's help? It's kind of hard to not call bs on that and all their other insane stories.

And kind of hard for them to hear that Santa ain't real. Of course they get defensive.

That's OK. Except for in the middle East these organized religions are on their way out. Less than 500 years no one will be teaching this crap.


----------



## sealybobo

forkup said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah I think, weirdly enough by talking on this forum, problems start when ppl believe their faiths supersede secular laws. It starts giving them the moral right in their heads to try to forcible and even violently change ppl's mind or even kill them. Faith as long as it's a personal choice isn't bad, it's the religious dogma that gets ppl.
Click to expand...

By the way Gordie howe was dying until he went to Mexico and got stem cells that aren't legal here in Michigan. How many poor Americans die every year because of religion? Tonight Gordie howe is walking into the Joe Lewis arena on his own. Fuck you religion!

I think Nancy Reagan flip flopped on stem cell when she heard it could lead to a cure for Alzheimer's. This is why we wish bad things on religious people. Seems they don't have empathy for ANYONE but themselves. It sounds mean but if that's the only way they will see the light


----------



## ChrisL

forkup said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah I think, weirdly enough by talking on this forum, problems start when ppl believe their faiths supersede secular laws. It starts giving them the moral right in their heads to try to forcible and even violently change ppl's mind or even kill them. Faith as long as it's a personal choice isn't bad, it's the religious dogma that gets ppl.
Click to expand...


But that is exactly what they say, that their "God's laws" surpass the laws of man . . . it's crazy.


----------



## sealybobo

Did you hear the nut with a gun at the capital believed in God? I think he was a preacher. Yea I should listen to them


----------



## emilynghiem

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.
> 
> The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.
> 
> 
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
Click to expand...


Hi forkup before you go any further with this
(A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'

The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'

Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based). 

Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.

(B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from 
* retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
* restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace

(C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms; 
1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations 
to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
(as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)

Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
and that 
* unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
* forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively

Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.

Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.

We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.

Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Did you hear the nut with a gun at the capital believed in God? I think he was a preacher. Yea I should listen to them


*
So it's better to listen to Jared Loughner, the Arizona shooter who is an atheist?*
==========================================================
*Jared Loughner*







Loughner's friends described him as apolitical, an atheist, and a nihilist. He lived a rather nondescript and low-key childhood, but then dropped out of high school. After this, he began to unravel mentally, started abusing hallucinogens and other sorts of dope.
==========================================================
*... and also keep promoting the use of drugs and hallucinogens
since those are less dangerous than alcohol. What else can we learn from this guy?*

Note to sealybobo just because this guy was an atheist, and went off the political and mental deep end, doesn't mean I should discredit anything that other atheists say on account of this guy.

Likewise, just because the guy in DC was a theist, and went off with a gun, doesn't mean I should discredit what other theists say on account of that guy.

Is that fair?

the issue I found that makes all the difference is FORGIVENESS:
If you believe in God or don't believe in God but are FORGIVING of problems, conflicts or differences, then you can work out issues without going off on dangerous attacks or extremes.
If you are not forgiving, whether or not you believe in God, this is going to cause problems by projecting past issues onto future relations and repeat patterns from the past.
This will happen with Christians and nonchristians who do not forgive first; theists and nontheists, whatever political or religious affiliation or none at all; it is a part of human nature to be trapped in the past by what we haven't resolved, let go or forgiven, and being able to receive healing transformation when we do ask help to forgive that which we can't let go on our own.

This process of healing by forgiveness is natural and universal for all people. instead of trying to prove or disprove God or not, I believe that healing process can be quantified and demonstrated to apply universally, even though the source of the process and healing energy remains faith based. The most we can do is establish "mutual agreement" on what principles, concepts and process we are talking about (that remain faith based) and that's enough to resolve key conflicts.


----------



## ChrisL

emilynghiem said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi forkup before you go any further with this
> (A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
> can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'
> 
> The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'
> 
> Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).
> 
> Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.
> 
> (B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
> * retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
> * restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace
> 
> (C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
> 1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
> such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
> collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
> 2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
> moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
> to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
> (as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)
> 
> Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
> and that
> * unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
> * forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively
> 
> Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.
> 
> Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
> that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.
> 
> We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
> We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
> And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.
> 
> Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
> No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
> If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
> Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.
Click to expand...


Sure Emily, but the thread is specifically asking a question about a belief in a God, whether or not such an entity exists or not.


----------



## emilynghiem

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A priest on TV today said you should consider me your Goliath. Without him who would Sampson have been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol....I think you mean David and goliath.
> 
> Samson and Goliath was an animated children's  TV show.
Click to expand...


Maybe sealybobo proposes to be the "Delilah" to hobelim's "Sampson"? 
And be the one to make a man out of him, or a mouse!


----------



## emilynghiem

ChrisL said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi forkup before you go any further with this
> (A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
> can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'
> 
> The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'
> 
> Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).
> 
> Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.
> 
> (B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
> * retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
> * restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace
> 
> (C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
> 1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
> such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
> collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
> 2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
> moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
> to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
> (as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)
> 
> Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
> and that
> * unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
> * forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively
> 
> Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.
> 
> Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
> that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.
> 
> We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
> We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
> And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.
> 
> Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
> No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
> If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
> Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure Emily, but the thread is specifically asking a question about a belief in a God, whether or not such an entity exists or not.
Click to expand...


Yes, and the answer is
1. it depends on what CONCEPT you use God to mean
2. and recognize that regardless, God remains faith based
3. the real issue is which terms and systems do we agree to use to stand for 
concepts and principles we are trying to relate to (regardless if they exist or are theoretical beliefs)

Since neither the existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven,
all we are REALLY doing is hashing out an AGREEMENT on what we mean
and which terms we agree to use for which concepts.

Again, the comparison to math.
it's not really about proving if the quantities 1, 400, 1000, or infinity "exist" or not.
What we're doing is agreeing how to set up a consistent system of
NOTATION to stand for these quantities (whether or not they exist or are purely theoretical)

That's all we CAN do, is just agree on terms.
So that's why I bring up the factor of Forgiveness as the key to the process.
The more we can FORGIVE our conflicts, issues and differences,
the better we can reconcile our different ways, align along similar or equivalent MEANINGS or Parallels,
and communicate ACROSS our different systems (including theistic and nontheistic, religious or secular).

We are aligning concepts and terms.
And the concept and principles we are representing remain faith based.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
Click to expand...


The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?


----------



## emilynghiem

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?
Click to expand...


Again zaangalewa the way to identify the true spirit of Christ Jesus
is by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. This is the other side of the sword
to RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:  People who act out of
fear, ill will, retribution, divide and conquer, unforgiveness, exclusion and coercion
this is ANTICHRIST or the opposite. Retributive justice kills relations and brings death war and destruction.

Restorative Justice bring life and lasting peace, restores the spirit and brings salvation to humanity.

This is the way of Christ Jesus consistent with God's IDEAL will through:
love, not fear
good will toward all (even enemies who persecute), not ill will toward any
forgiveness and redemption, not unforgiveness and retribution
correction restitution and healing, not judgement and punishment
universal inclusion, not exclusion to divide and attack
compassion and charity, not coercion and oppression
rebuilding and restoring neighborly relations and community
not killing, destroying, abusing power to commit genocide etc.

There is no mistaking true Christian leadership with the abusive Antichrist politics,
as the two are as opposite as night and day. 

One is charitable towards all people, uplifts transforms heals and unites to serve and benefit all humanity.
The other divides, kills and destroys for political greed for power over others for one's own gain.

One brings life, the other brings death.
That is why the Bible shows both paths in history: the killing and genocide of the Old Testament
from living by the LETTER of the law that gets corrupted by material greed and political control;
versus the rebirth and restoration of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament
from living by the SPIRIT of the law that allows the letter to be restored and fulfilled in full,
and for all wrongs and ills to be righted and make new in Christ Jesus as representing
Restorative Justice bringing salvation healing and peace to all humanity as intended at the start.


----------



## Mudda

There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.


----------



## forkup

emilynghiem said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi forkup before you go any further with this
> (A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
> can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'
> 
> The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'
> 
> Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).
> 
> Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.
> 
> (B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
> * retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
> * restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace
> 
> (C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
> 1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
> such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
> collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
> 2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
> moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
> to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
> (as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)
> 
> Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
> and that
> * unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
> * forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively
> 
> Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.
> 
> Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
> that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.
> 
> We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
> We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
> And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.
> 
> Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
> No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
> If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
> Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree,  that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.


----------



## zaangalewa

emilynghiem said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again zaangalewa the way to identify the true spirit of Christ Jesus
> is by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. This is the other side of the sword [/quote ]
> 
> The other side of the sword? Swords are weaspons for to kill human beings with.
> 
> to RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:
Click to expand...


"Retributive Justice" is a contradiction and "restorative justice"  seems to be a totally senseless expression. Anyway I never saw a form of human "justice" = "law and order"  what produces not injustice too. Anyway I don't trust in laws or other formalisms. And murderers become often rich and live a long happy life while they are well respected from everyone.



> People who act out of
> fear, ill will, retribution, divide and conquer, unforgiveness, exclusion and coercion
> this is ANTICHRIST or the opposite. Retributive justice kills relations and brings death war and destruction.



Hmm



> Restorative Justice bring life



Love brings life. "Justice" could help to protect living conditions. But the reality are abortions and a destruction of the biosphere.



> and lasting peace, restores the spirit and brings salvation to humanity.



That's your hope. What can I say? Hopefully you are right - but I doubt about.



> This is the way of Christ Jesus consistent with God's IDEAL will through:
> love, not fear
> good will toward all (even enemies who persecute), not ill will toward any
> forgiveness and redemption, not unforgiveness and retribution
> correction restitution and healing, not judgement and punishment
> universal inclusion, not exclusion to divide and attack
> compassion and charity, not coercion and oppression
> rebuilding and restoring neighborly relations and community
> not killing, destroying, abusing power to commit genocide etc.



Your words might find the ears of god.



> There is no mistaking true Christian leadership with the abusive Antichrist politics,
> as the two are as opposite as night and day.



For me the american Christianity or Humanity is often combined with a very zoroastrian element: positve=Christ=Ahura Mazda, negative=Antichrist=Angra Mainu. Also Atheists and Muslims are using such concepts continously. But did you ever try to think about why god created also this what we call evil?



> One is charitable towards all people, uplifts transforms heals and unites to serve and benefit all humanity.
> The other divides, kills and destroys for political greed for power over others for one's own gain.
> 
> One brings life, the other brings death.



That's true: life is good, death is bad.  But every life passes only through this universe and dies here.



> That is why the Bible shows both paths in history: the killing and genocide of the Old Testament



Old Testament? Genocide? Makes no sense. Is there any concrete background for you now to think about something special in this context?



> from living by the LETTER of the law that gets corrupted by material greed and political control;
> versus the rebirth and restoration of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament
> from living by the SPIRIT of the law that allows the letter to be restored and fulfilled in full,
> and for all wrongs and ills to be righted and make new in Christ Jesus as representing
> Restorative Justice bringing salvation healing and peace to all humanity as intended at the start.



Let me try to say with the words of the bible what I think about he justice of human beings, although I lived in the 20th and 21st century:

-----
_What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin._
-----


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again zaangalewa the way to identify the true spirit of Christ Jesus
> is by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. This is the other side of the sword [/quote ]
> 
> The other side of the sword? Swords are weaspons for to kill human beings with.
> 
> to RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Retributive Justice" is a contradiction and "restorative justice"  seems to be a totally senseless expression. Anyway I never saw a form of human "justice" = "law and order"  what produces not injustice too. Anyway I don't trust in laws or other formalisms. And murderers become often rich and live a long happy life while they are well respected from everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who act out of
> fear, ill will, retribution, divide and conquer, unforgiveness, exclusion and coercion
> this is ANTICHRIST or the opposite. Retributive justice kills relations and brings death war and destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Restorative Justice bring life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love brings life. "Justice" could help to protect living conditions. But the reality are abortions and a destruction of the biosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and lasting peace, restores the spirit and brings salvation to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your hope. What can I say? Hopefully you are right - but I doubt about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the way of Christ Jesus consistent with God's IDEAL will through:
> love, not fear
> good will toward all (even enemies who persecute), not ill will toward any
> forgiveness and redemption, not unforgiveness and retribution
> correction restitution and healing, not judgement and punishment
> universal inclusion, not exclusion to divide and attack
> compassion and charity, not coercion and oppression
> rebuilding and restoring neighborly relations and community
> not killing, destroying, abusing power to commit genocide etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your words might find the ears of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no mistaking true Christian leadership with the abusive Antichrist politics,
> as the two are as opposite as night and day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me the american Christianity or Humanity is often combined with a very zoroastrian element: positve=Christ=Ahura Mazda, negative=Antichrist=Angra Mainu. Also Atheists and Muslims are using such concepts continously. But did you ever try to think about why god created also this what we call evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is charitable towards all people, uplifts transforms heals and unites to serve and benefit all humanity.
> The other divides, kills and destroys for political greed for power over others for one's own gain.
> 
> One brings life, the other brings death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true: life is good, death is bad.  But every life passes only through this universe and dies here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why the Bible shows both paths in history: the killing and genocide of the Old Testament
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Testament? Genocide? Makes no sense. Is there any concrete background for you now to think about something special in this context?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from living by the LETTER of the law that gets corrupted by material greed and political control;
> versus the rebirth and restoration of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament
> from living by the SPIRIT of the law that allows the letter to be restored and fulfilled in full,
> and for all wrongs and ills to be righted and make new in Christ Jesus as representing
> Restorative Justice bringing salvation healing and peace to all humanity as intended at the start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me try to say with the words of the bible what I think about he justice of human beings, although I lived in the 20th and 21st century:
> 
> -----
> _What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin._
> -----
Click to expand...

As long as you understand that all the atoms that comprise life on earth; the atoms that make up the human body, are traceable to the stars that cooked light elements into heavy elements in their core, under extreme temperatures and pressures. These stars, the high mass ones among them, went unstable in their later years. They collapsed and then exploded, scattering their enriched guts across the galaxy. Guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These ingredients became part of gas clouds, that condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems stars with orbiting planets and all of those planets now have ingredients for life itself.  

Many people feel small, because they’re small and the universe is big, but I feel big, because my atoms, came from those stars. There is a level of connectivity. That’s really what you want in life, you want to feel connected, you want to feel relevant. You want to feel like your a participant in the goings on of activities and events around you. That’s precisely what we are, just by being alive.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again zaangalewa the way to identify the true spirit of Christ Jesus
> is by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. This is the other side of the sword [/quote ]
> 
> The other side of the sword? Swords are weaspons for to kill human beings with.
> 
> to RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Retributive Justice" is a contradiction and "restorative justice"  seems to be a totally senseless expression. Anyway I never saw a form of human "justice" = "law and order"  what produces not injustice too. Anyway I don't trust in laws or other formalisms. And murderers become often rich and live a long happy life while they are well respected from everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who act out of
> fear, ill will, retribution, divide and conquer, unforgiveness, exclusion and coercion
> this is ANTICHRIST or the opposite. Retributive justice kills relations and brings death war and destruction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Restorative Justice bring life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love brings life. "Justice" could help to protect living conditions. But the reality are abortions and a destruction of the biosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and lasting peace, restores the spirit and brings salvation to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your hope. What can I say? Hopefully you are right - but I doubt about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the way of Christ Jesus consistent with God's IDEAL will through:
> love, not fear
> good will toward all (even enemies who persecute), not ill will toward any
> forgiveness and redemption, not unforgiveness and retribution
> correction restitution and healing, not judgement and punishment
> universal inclusion, not exclusion to divide and attack
> compassion and charity, not coercion and oppression
> rebuilding and restoring neighborly relations and community
> not killing, destroying, abusing power to commit genocide etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your words might find the ears of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no mistaking true Christian leadership with the abusive Antichrist politics,
> as the two are as opposite as night and day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me the american Christianity or Humanity is often combined with a very zoroastrian element: positve=Christ=Ahura Mazda, negative=Antichrist=Angra Mainu. Also Atheists and Muslims are using such concepts continously. But did you ever try to think about why god created also this what we call evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is charitable towards all people, uplifts transforms heals and unites to serve and benefit all humanity.
> The other divides, kills and destroys for political greed for power over others for one's own gain.
> 
> One brings life, the other brings death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true: life is good, death is bad.  But every life passes only through this universe and dies here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why the Bible shows both paths in history: the killing and genocide of the Old Testament
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Testament? Genocide? Makes no sense. Is there any concrete background for you now to think about something special in this context?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from living by the LETTER of the law that gets corrupted by material greed and political control;
> versus the rebirth and restoration of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament
> from living by the SPIRIT of the law that allows the letter to be restored and fulfilled in full,
> and for all wrongs and ills to be righted and make new in Christ Jesus as representing
> Restorative Justice bringing salvation healing and peace to all humanity as intended at the start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me try to say with the words of the bible what I think about he justice of human beings, although I lived in the 20th and 21st century:
> 
> -----
> _What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin._
> -----
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as you understand that all the atoms that comprise life on earth; the atoms that make up the human body, are traceable to the stars that cooked light elements into heavy elements in their core, under extreme temperatures and pressures. These stars, the high mass ones among them, went unstable in their later years. They collapsed and then exploded, scattering their enriched guts across the galaxy. Guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These ingredients became part of gas clouds, that condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems stars with orbiting planets and all of those planets now have ingredients for life itself.
> 
> Many people feel small, because they’re small and the universe is big, but I feel big, because my atoms, came from those stars. There is a level of connectivity. That’s really what you want in life, you want to feel connected, you want to feel relevant. You want to feel like your a participant in the goings on of activities and events around you. That’s precisely what we are, just by being alive.
Click to expand...


And what has this what you say here to do with anything what I said to someone else?

I changed by the way all atoms of my body completly and still I am here.


PS: I don't know in the moment how many of your mistakes I corrected here. It were a lot.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong.  BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.
> 
> The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE.  You got 2/4.  I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right."  The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand.  I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.
> 
> 
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
Click to expand...


If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.  

You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.


----------



## james bond

ChrisL said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
Click to expand...


Most, if not all religions, believe in some for of last judgment.  The only one that doesn't is atheism, but even atheists wish some people get their just desserts.  Evil comes from free will, and that's what led to original sin so it's not possible.  We're not perfect.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi forkup before you go any further with this
> (A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
> can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'
> 
> The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'
> 
> Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).
> 
> Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.
> 
> (B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
> * retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
> * restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace
> 
> (C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
> 1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
> such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
> collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
> 2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
> moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
> to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
> (as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)
> 
> Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
> and that
> * unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
> * forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively
> 
> Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.
> 
> Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
> that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.
> 
> We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
> We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
> And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.
> 
> Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
> No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
> If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
> Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree,  that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.
Click to expand...


What's your origin of disease?  Is it evolution?


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
Click to expand...

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi forkup before you go any further with this
> (A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
> can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'
> 
> The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'
> 
> Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).
> 
> Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.
> 
> (B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
> * retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
> * restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace
> 
> (C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
> 1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
> such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
> collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
> 2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
> moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
> to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
> (as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)
> 
> Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
> and that
> * unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
> * forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively
> 
> Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.
> 
> Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
> that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.
> 
> We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
> We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
> And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.
> 
> Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
> No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
> If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
> Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree,  that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your origin of disease?  Is it evolution?
Click to expand...

Some are organisms struggling to survive ( bacteria,parasites)
Some are half-organisms who need living organisms to reproduce ( virusus)
Some are mutations going haywire (cancer)
So yes evolution
You are making a very common assumption from religious ppl
Namely that man is the ultimate species, that we are in some way the culmination of a supreme beings will to create. We are in fact just one of the organisms that has walked this earth. We aren't the last, longest lived or most succesfull in any objective sense.


----------



## emilynghiem

Mudda said:


> There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.


 Hi Mudda what if you define God to be the forces of Life and Nature that naturally exist?
Are you saying there is no consistent system to the laws and forced out there?
That is one definition of God that is workable.
It is all theory, like the laws of gravity are theory.

We can "prove" when our brains go into dream states, 
but we can't "prove" what we dreamed last night and have to
take each other's word for it on faith.

Are you going to reject gravity, dreams, theories on homosexuality
because these can never be proven?  Good luck living in a world where you depend on things to be proven first.
They can be proven to you, but not proven to everyone without still relying on some faith.
Even the laws of gravity are theories we assume will continue to hold, but that's based on faith.
And yet we still take advantage of and use the laws of gravity to work for us, regardless if we can prove this or not.

We don't have hangups or religious arguments over gravity (unless you are one of the flat earth theorists)
but we argue over God because that has been abused politically to divide and attack by tribe for dominance.
if we get rid of the political bullying environment around it, there is no reason to argue emotionally about
God any more than we would over gravity! We need to be that neutral and Zenlike and not drag past politics into our debates.

Most of the distortion and disruption is from emotional baggage.
Get that factor out of the way, and we can actually work through the other terminology like math and science
without this emotional sidetaking and undercutting/backbiting going on.

sorry for that, and I hope it gets better and we can focus more on the actual
content of principles and relationships that science and religion are used to symbolize.
These are like two different languages for relationships and processes in the world.
So of course people are going to describe it differently from their own cultural and linguistic preferences and background.

this should be seen as a positive challenge not a negative conflict that there are different languages for the
laws of natural, life and relations between humans and the collective world. Big deal. why can't we deal with this maturely?


----------



## Mudda

emilynghiem said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mudda what if you define God to be the forces of Life and Nature that naturally exist?
> Are you saying there is no consistent system to the laws and forced out there?
> That is one definition of God that is workable.
> It is all theory, like the laws of gravity are theory.
> 
> We can "prove" when our brains go into dream states,
> but we can't "prove" what we dreamed last night and have to
> take each other's word for it on faith.
> 
> Are you going to reject gravity, dreams, theories on homosexuality
> because these can never be proven?  Good luck living in a world where you depend on things to be proven first.
> They can be proven to you, but not proven to everyone without still relying on some faith.
> Even the laws of gravity are theories we assume will continue to hold, but that's based on faith.
> And yet we still take advantage of and use the laws of gravity to work for us, regardless if we can prove this or not.
> 
> We don't have hangups or religious arguments over gravity (unless you are one of the flat earth theorists)
> but we argue over God because that has been abused politically to divide and attack by tribe for dominance.
> if we get rid of the political bullying environment around it, there is no reason to argue emotionally about
> God any more than we would over gravity! We need to be that neutral and Zenlike and not drag past politics into our debates.
> 
> Most of the distortion and disruption is from emotional baggage.
> Get that factor out of the way, and we can actually work through the other terminology like math and science
> without this emotional sidetaking and undercutting/backbiting going on.
> 
> sorry for that, and I hope it gets better and we can focus more on the actual
> content of principles and relationships that science and religion are used to symbolize.
> These are like two different languages for relationships and processes in the world.
> So of course people are going to describe it differently from their own cultural and linguistic preferences and background.
> 
> this should be seen as a positive challenge not a negative conflict that there are different languages for the
> laws of natural, life and relations between humans and the collective world. Big deal. why can't we deal with this maturely?
Click to expand...

Is this just a copy&paste gust of windbag, or do you actually write all this bullshit out every time?


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
Click to expand...

But you are wrong. There's another possibility. There could be a God/creator but it never endorsed any religions and never visited.

The first two questions I'm going to ask God if I ever see him is which God are you? Are you Jehovah the Christ God Muhammad Moses Joseph Smith? Second question I'm going to ask is why did he go to Such Great Lengths to hide?


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi forkup before you go any further with this
> (A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
> can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'
> 
> The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'
> 
> Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).
> 
> Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.
> 
> (B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
> * retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
> * restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace
> 
> (C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
> 1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
> such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
> collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
> 2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
> moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
> to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
> (as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)
> 
> Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
> and that
> * unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
> * forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively
> 
> Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.
> 
> Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
> that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.
> 
> We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
> We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
> And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.
> 
> Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
> No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
> If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
> Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree,  that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your origin of disease?  Is it evolution?
Click to expand...

Atrophy and flaws.


----------



## sealybobo

Mudda said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mudda what if you define God to be the forces of Life and Nature that naturally exist?
> Are you saying there is no consistent system to the laws and forced out there?
> That is one definition of God that is workable.
> It is all theory, like the laws of gravity are theory.
> 
> We can "prove" when our brains go into dream states,
> but we can't "prove" what we dreamed last night and have to
> take each other's word for it on faith.
> 
> Are you going to reject gravity, dreams, theories on homosexuality
> because these can never be proven?  Good luck living in a world where you depend on things to be proven first.
> They can be proven to you, but not proven to everyone without still relying on some faith.
> Even the laws of gravity are theories we assume will continue to hold, but that's based on faith.
> And yet we still take advantage of and use the laws of gravity to work for us, regardless if we can prove this or not.
> 
> We don't have hangups or religious arguments over gravity (unless you are one of the flat earth theorists)
> but we argue over God because that has been abused politically to divide and attack by tribe for dominance.
> if we get rid of the political bullying environment around it, there is no reason to argue emotionally about
> God any more than we would over gravity! We need to be that neutral and Zenlike and not drag past politics into our debates.
> 
> Most of the distortion and disruption is from emotional baggage.
> Get that factor out of the way, and we can actually work through the other terminology like math and science
> without this emotional sidetaking and undercutting/backbiting going on.
> 
> sorry for that, and I hope it gets better and we can focus more on the actual
> content of principles and relationships that science and religion are used to symbolize.
> These are like two different languages for relationships and processes in the world.
> So of course people are going to describe it differently from their own cultural and linguistic preferences and background.
> 
> this should be seen as a positive challenge not a negative conflict that there are different languages for the
> laws of natural, life and relations between humans and the collective world. Big deal. why can't we deal with this maturely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this just a copy&paste gust of windbag, or do you actually write all this bullshit out every time?
Click to expand...

I feel bad because she's nice but I've completely tuned her out. She basically says put aside your differences. She's trying to change the subject or be a mediator. Look for common ground.

Im going to go see if she has any threads going. Or if anyone is buying into it


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have.  The closer to the source the better.  That means organic or natural foods.  However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole.  Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over.  Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems.  Take a look at how canola oil is made.  It's disgusting.  Using olive, peanut or coconut is better.  Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.
> 
> 
> It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption.  The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane.  These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost.  These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more.  In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease.  Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.
> 
> I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version."  Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian?  How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
> costs to health
> costs to society
> 
> if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.
> 
> I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
> if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."
> 
> If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person.  In fact, I would say it is just the opposite.  A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most, if not all religions, believe in some for of last judgment.  The only one that doesn't is atheism, but even atheists wish some people get their just desserts.  Evil comes from free will, and that's what led to original sin so it's not possible.  We're not perfect.
Click to expand...

Do you think you feel worse than us when you do something wrong? Do you think saying sorry to a God gives you a free pass? We don't believe that.

If Adam and Eve were the first humans who were Kain and Abel's wife?


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ... The first two questions I'm going to ask God if I ever see him is which God are you? Are you Jehovah the Christ God Muhammad Moses Joseph Smith?



I guess he will say "I am what I am" or "I am what I will be" - what you would know if you would be interested in true realities and not only in your not existing ideas about a not existing world in your not existing thoughts. Nothing becomes true or real because a human being thinks the own thoughts are true or real. Everything is what it is on its own reasons. So everyone may normally ask always everywhere everything and will find a way. But you don't ask. You say: "Everyone is an idiot because I am the prophet of the notexistance of god."



> Second question I'm going to ask is why did he go to Such Great Lengths to hide?



What do you really like to know from god? I will ask him and give you the answer. But you don't need me. Ask him yourselve and he will answer. Open your heart so his light might shine in and you will hear the answer - although the answer is able to be anywhere in the world all around you. But you will be able to feel it and to find it on your own.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible.  Science says GMO foods are fine.  There are pros and cons according to the Bible.  (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.  He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.
> 
> Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was a test of their free will.  So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet.  They were to be good stewards of the earth.  Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.
> 
> The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world.  Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects.  By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin.  By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.
> 
> This was *perfect* for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.
> 
> GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people.  This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants.  The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction.  Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in.  These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.
> 
> These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.
> 
> 
> People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short.  As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God.  We long to get back to the original state or source.  It's inherent in us.  As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
Click to expand...


Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.


----------



## james bond

Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance


Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The first two questions I'm going to ask God if I ever see him is which God are you? Are you Jehovah the Christ God Muhammad Moses Joseph Smith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess he will say "I am what I am" or "I am what I will be" - what you would know if you would be interested in true realities and not only in your not existing ideas about a not existing world in your not existing thoughts. Nothing becomes true or real because a human being thinks the own thoughts are true or real. Everything is what it is on its own reasons. So everyone may normally ask always everywhere everything and will find a way. But you don't ask. You say: "Everyone is an idiot because I am the prophet of the notexistance of god."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second question I'm going to ask is why did he go to Such Great Lengths to hide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you really like to know from god? I will ask him and give you the answer. But you don't need me. Ask him yourselve and he will answer. Open your heart so his light might shine in and you will hear the answer - although the answer is able to be anywhere in the world all around you. But you will be able to feel it and to find it on your own.
Click to expand...

Ask him what number between 1-999 I'm thinking of


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

So Cain & Abel's wives were also their sisters?

Same with all of Noah's grandkids. Incest. 

No wonder we're fucked up.

If you understood evolution you'd understand how stupid your theory is.

So the first two dogs, lion, birds etc all had incest until there were enough they didn't have to anymore?

This is just silly


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The first two questions I'm going to ask God if I ever see him is which God are you? Are you Jehovah the Christ God Muhammad Moses Joseph Smith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess he will say "I am what I am" or "I am what I will be" - what you would know if you would be interested in true realities and not only in your not existing ideas about a not existing world in your not existing thoughts. Nothing becomes true or real because a human being thinks the own thoughts are true or real. Everything is what it is on its own reasons. So everyone may normally ask always everywhere everything and will find a way. But you don't ask. You say: "Everyone is an idiot because I am the prophet of the notexistance of god."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second question I'm going to ask is why did he go to Such Great Lengths to hide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you really like to know from god? I will ask him and give you the answer. But you don't need me. Ask him yourselve and he will answer. Open your heart so his light might shine in and you will hear the answer - although the answer is able to be anywhere in the world all around you. But you will be able to feel it and to find it on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask him what number between 1-999 I'm thinking of
Click to expand...


The answer was a laughter full of sympathy from satana. Hope you did not learn your form of  "jewish poker" from Nazis. Perhaps it's better to learn the original rules.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not evidence and makes no sense.  Strictly rambling ons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened. 
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.


----------



## ChrisL

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
Click to expand...


Adam and Eve supposedly had two MALE children, Cain and Abel.  How in the world did they make any babies?  The whole concept of religion is for screwballs.


----------



## ChrisL

Unless of course they had sex with their MOM.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi forkup before you go any further with this
> (A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
> can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'
> 
> The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'
> 
> Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).
> 
> Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.
> 
> (B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
> * retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
> * restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace
> 
> (C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
> 1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
> such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
> collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
> 2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
> moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
> to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
> (as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)
> 
> Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
> and that
> * unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
> * forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively
> 
> Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.
> 
> Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
> that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.
> 
> We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
> We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
> And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.
> 
> Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
> No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
> If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
> Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree,  that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your origin of disease?  Is it evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some are organisms struggling to survive ( bacteria,parasites)
> Some are half-organisms who need living organisms to reproduce ( virusus)
> Some are mutations going haywire (cancer)
> So yes evolution
> You are making a very common assumption from religious ppl
> Namely that man is the ultimate species, that we are in some way the culmination of a supreme beings will to create. We are in fact just one of the organisms that has walked this earth. We aren't the last, longest lived or most succesfull in any objective sense.
Click to expand...


Not just religious people.  Most educated people.

See, but what's lacking is how did these develop?  I'm not looking for an answer, but pointing out evolution discusses how they spread.  They'll go cholera (genetic disease) started in the genes by pointing out allele.  I know if I want to get 100% on the exam in med school, I'm going to say allele.  However, the answer is it just happened randomly which is assumed.

In this case, there isn't a clear-cut winner, as more research is needed.

Here's my answer to your points if you're interested.  No reply necessary.  My questions are only rhetorical.

A.  Agree.  How far are you willing to go for your faith?
B.  Mostly disagree.  I think Jesus came for atonement and salvation.  While Jesus did teach about justice, it was just part of His Sermon on the Mount.  See below for eye for an eye.  It's a difficult verse.  

One of the big differences in the Abrahamic religions is the Resurrection of Jesus which we just celebrated.  There is physical and eyewitness testimony of it which is the best evidence of the times.  Even if I had a camera and it showed Jesus moving the stone and walking out would not be proof.  If one wanted to destroy Christianity, then if someone disproved the Resurrection it would do it.

Matthew 5:38-42
Retaliation
38 h“You have heard that it was said, y‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, zDo not resist the one who is evil. But aif anyone bslaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And zif anyone would sue you and take your tunic,8 let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone cforces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 dGive to the one who begs from you, and edo not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

I'll look over the rest when I have more time.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> ... Adam and Eve supposedly had two MALE children, Cain and Abel.  How in the world did they make any babies?  The whole concept of religion is for screwballs.



Specially because Cain murdered Abel so god made later a mark on him to show to everyone that no one had any right to punish Cain? ... Oh by the way: In the middle ages the people learned first something and afterwards they had an opinion. The people today seem to have an opinion independent from any truth (logos) or reality (creation) but with an extraordinary high darwinistic (ideological) will to kill everyone else who shares not the own stupidities.


----------



## sealybobo

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
Click to expand...

The fact is people lived an average of about 40 years old back the., not 950 years.

And I thought God made us human after Adam ate the Apple. Id say living 950 years ain't so bad. I'd take 200.

And if religions say society's going to hell why are we living longer now that we dropped God and picked up science?


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Adam and Eve supposedly had two MALE children, Cain and Abel.  How in the world did they make any babies?  The whole concept of religion is for screwballs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specially because Cain murdered Abel so god made later a mark on him to show to everyone that no one had any right to punish Cain? ... Oh by the way: In the middle ages the people learned first something and afterwards they had an opinion. The people today seem to have an opinion independent from any truth (logos) or reality (creation) but with an extraordinary high darwinistic (ideological) will to kill everyone else who shares not the own stupidities.
Click to expand...

Oh that explains it. Lol


----------



## HUGGY

ChrisL said:


> Unless of course they had sex with their MOM.



EWWW!!!


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> Unless of course they had sex with their MOM.



Nice way to say Cain and Abel were motherfuckers and to express in this way your deep hate against the so called abrahamitic religions. And now travel somewhere into the world - for example on a market place somewhere in Pakistan and write on a shield "I am an US-American" and "Abel - the son of Eve, the mother of all mankind - was a motherfucker".


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Adam and Eve supposedly had two MALE children, Cain and Abel.  How in the world did they make any babies?  The whole concept of religion is for screwballs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specially because Cain murdered Abel so god made later a mark on him to show to everyone that no one had any right to punish Cain? ... Oh by the way: In the middle ages the people learned first something and afterwards they had an opinion. The people today seem to have an opinion independent from any truth (logos) or reality (creation) but with an extraordinary high darwinistic (ideological) will to kill everyone else who shares not the own stupidities.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh that explains it. Lol
Click to expand...


Oh by the way: What says this, what you think what the theory of evolution could be, about the survival of idiots? To remember: The eldest tribe of mankind which lives meanwhile since thousands of years in the same tradition are Jews.


----------



## Boss

Mudda said:


> There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.



Let's break down what you are really saying... Until someone proves God to you, who has committed to not believing in God regardless, then God doesn't exist and all subsequent debate is meaningless.

And let's distill that further... You are a closed minded intolerant when it comes to God. You are prepared to reject any and all arguments for God or to objectively evaluate any evidence to suggest a God. The only way possible for you to ever believe in the existence of God is if someone captures you and, against your will, brainwashes you into such a belief. 

And really, it's that simple. We can talk for days, weeks, months or years... we can present all kinds of arguments but you're never going to listen or pay attention because your mind is a steel trap... it cannot be changed on this subject. 

Now... you will say, _"Boss, how can you make such assumptions and judgments on me?"_ And it's because of my profound wisdom and understanding of the human condition. For example, I realize that this thing we call "PROOF" is a subjective thing which depends solely on perspectives of the individual. PROOF is something which convinces you that evidence is true. Since you believe no evidence can be true when it pertains to something you don't believe in, then nothing will ever suffice as proof. 

Here's an analogy... Pretend I am a tribal chief living in an isolated African jungle far away from modern civilization.... I believe the Sun is raised and lowered in the sky by a God and the rain is a blessing showered down by a God... You encounter me, and armed with your modern science books and technology, attempt to show me the truth.... Well, it's all foreign to me. I simply cannot comprehend your books or your scientific explanations. You can talk to me for days, weeks, months, years... it won't matter because my father and his father believed the Sun God was real and that's what I am going to believe as well. You cannot "PROVE" something to me that I am not willing to accept... it's not PROOF to me.


----------



## Mudda

Boss said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's break down what you are really saying... Until someone proves God to you, who has committed to not believing in God regardless, then God doesn't exist and all subsequent debate is meaningless.
> 
> And let's distill that further... You are a closed minded intolerant when it comes to God. You are prepared to reject any and all arguments for God or to objectively evaluate any evidence to suggest a God. The only way possible for you to ever believe in the existence of God is if someone captures you and, against your will, brainwashes you into such a belief.
> 
> And really, it's that simple. We can talk for days, weeks, months or years... we can present all kinds of arguments but you're never going to listen or pay attention because your mind is a steel trap... it cannot be changed on this subject.
> 
> Now... you will say, _"Boss, how can you make such assumptions and judgments on me?"_ And it's because of my profound wisdom and understanding of the human condition. For example, I realize that this thing we call "PROOF" is a subjective thing which depends solely on perspectives of the individual. PROOF is something which convinces you that evidence is true. Since you believe no evidence can be true when it pertains to something you don't believe in, then nothing will ever suffice as proof.
> 
> Here's an analogy... Pretend I am a tribal chief living in an isolated African jungle far away from modern civilization.... I believe the Sun is raised and lowered in the sky by a God and the rain is a blessing showered down by a God... You encounter me, and armed with your modern science books and technology, attempt to show me the truth.... Well, it's all foreign to me. I simply cannot comprehend your books or your scientific explanations. You can talk to me for days, weeks, months, years... it won't matter because my father and his father believed the Sun God was real and that's what I am going to believe as well. You cannot "PROVE" something to me that I am not willing to accept... it's not PROOF to me.
Click to expand...

I don't read long winded fartsmoke, if you can't make your point in four or five lines, then you have nothing to start with.
Here, I'll throw you a bone, if you can prove God, I'll admit that God exists. Can't be any fairer than that.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless of course they had sex with their MOM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice way to say Cain and Abel were motherfuckers and to express in this way your deep hate against the so called abrahamitic religions. And now travel somewhere into the world - for example on a market place somewhere in Pakistan and write on a shield "I am an US-American" and "Abel - the son of Eve, the mother of all mankind - was a motherfucker".
Click to expand...


Well, how did they have children?  Adam and Eve were the first people.  They had two SONS.  So explain that, little strange one.  

And again, you cannot "hate" what you don't think exists.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> Well, how did they have children? Adam and Eve were the first people. They had two SONS. So explain that, little strange one.




while everyone is waiting for a strange reply and another strange music video I can tell you that obvious contradictions that inspire rational questions like yours were deliberately placed in the story like a giant X on a treasure map that marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that you must become like a little child again. One has to read the stories as if they were fairy tales that convey a hidden sublime teaching for children.


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how did they have children? Adam and Eve were the first people. They had two SONS. So explain that, little strange one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while everyone is waiting for a strange reply and another strange music video I can tell you that obvious contradictions that inspire rational questions like yours were deliberately placed in the story like a giant X on a treasure map that marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.
> 
> Thats what Jesus meant by saying that you must become like a little child again. One has to read the stories as if they were fairy tales that convey a hidden sublime teaching for children.
Click to expand...


The point being that religion doesn't really make sense unless you live in a "fairy tale."  It is full of contradictions, and was obviously a book written by men who were ignorant of the world around them thousands of years ago.  None of it is "real."


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how did they have children? Adam and Eve were the first people. They had two SONS. So explain that, little strange one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while everyone is waiting for a strange reply and another strange music video I can tell you that obvious contradictions that inspire rational questions like yours were deliberately placed in the story like a giant X on a treasure map that marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.
> 
> Thats what Jesus meant by saying that you must become like a little child again. One has to read the stories as if they were fairy tales that convey a hidden sublime teaching for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being that religion doesn't really make sense unless you live in a "fairy tale."  It is full of contradictions, and was obviously a book written by men who were ignorant of the world around them thousands of years ago.  None of it is "real."
Click to expand...



Like I asked before, what type of imaginary mythological creature corresponds to a person who would claim that they could turn the living God into something that doesn't even qualify as a cheap snack food that will give eternal life to anyone who eats it for a mere 10% of their income or even a nominal service charge or minor donation?

Isn't that a perfect description of a talking serpent? I'm not making this stuff up.

You thought it was funny but you were in a church with someone saying and doing just that and this ain't no fairy tale and that creature was very real.

Don't you believe in what you have seen with your own eyes and have heard with your own ears?


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Well, how did they have children? Adam and Eve were the first people. They had two SONS. So explain that, little strange one.




Misinterpretation.  That's your explanation in a nutshell. 

There were already other people in the world when God created Adam and Eve in his image. This is evident by the accounts of Cain being cast out to the land of Nod, where he took a wife. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that Cain and Able were Adam and Eve's only children. We don't know how many more they might have had. The story is presented to explain God's intervention with mankind. It is the point at which God intervened and gave man the awareness of God where it was absent before. So it's not actually the literal creation of the first man and woman, it's the first creation of man and woman in God's image. Other men and women already existed.


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how did they have children? Adam and Eve were the first people. They had two SONS. So explain that, little strange one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while everyone is waiting for a strange reply and another strange music video I can tell you that obvious contradictions that inspire rational questions like yours were deliberately placed in the story like a giant X on a treasure map that marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.
> 
> Thats what Jesus meant by saying that you must become like a little child again. One has to read the stories as if they were fairy tales that convey a hidden sublime teaching for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point being that religion doesn't really make sense unless you live in a "fairy tale."  It is full of contradictions, and was obviously a book written by men who were ignorant of the world around them thousands of years ago.  None of it is "real."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I asked before, what type of imaginary mythological creature corresponds to a person who would claim that they could turn the living God into something that doesn't even qualify as a cheap snack food that will give eternal life to anyone who eats it for a mere 10% of their income or even a nominal service charge or minor donation?
> 
> Isn't that a perfect description of a talking serpent? I'm not making this stuff up.
> 
> You thought it was funny but you were in a church with someone saying and doing just that and this ain't no fairy tale and that creature was very real.
> 
> Don't you believe in what you have seen with your own eyes and have heard with your own ears?
Click to expand...


TBH, I think you are nuts.  Lol.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless of course they had sex with their MOM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice way to say Cain and Abel were motherfuckers and to express in this way your deep hate against the so called abrahamitic religions. And now travel somewhere into the world - for example on a market place somewhere in Pakistan and write on a shield "I am an US-American" and "Abel - the son of Eve, the mother of all mankind - was a motherfucker".
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, how did they have children?  Adam and Eve were the first people.  They had two SONS.  So explain that, little strange one.
Click to expand...


We are idiots?



> And again, you cannot "hate" what you don't think exists.



I'm sure I could "hate" a not existing piece of cake, if I would be hungry. Are you hungry? Or do you just simple prefer to spit on everything what you don't like to know?


in the songtext is written a wrong sentence:
wrong sentence  "... und sie kennt mein heißes Verlangen das Brennen erwacht ..." 
Right sentence: "... und sie kennt mein heißes Verlangen das brennend erwacht ..."


----------



## Boss

Mudda said:


> I don't read long winded fartsmoke...



It doesn't matter because your mind is not going to ever be changed.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> TBH, I think you are nuts.  Lol.




lol... sure, thats what they all say.


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> while everyone is waiting for a strange reply and another strange music video I can tell you that obvious contradictions that inspire rational questions like yours were deliberately placed in the story like a giant X on a treasure map that marks a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.
> 
> Thats what Jesus meant by saying that you must become like a little child again. One has to read the stories as if they were fairy tales that convey a hidden sublime teaching for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point being that religion doesn't really make sense unless you live in a "fairy tale."  It is full of contradictions, and was obviously a book written by men who were ignorant of the world around them thousands of years ago.  None of it is "real."
Click to expand...



Like I asked before, what type of imaginary mythological creature corresponds to a person who would claim that they could turn the living God into something that doesn't even qualify as a cheap snack food that will give eternal life to anyone who eats it for a mere 10% of their income or even a nominal service charge or minor donation?

Isn't that a perfect description of a talking serpent? I'm not making this stuff up.

You thought it was funny but you were in a church with someone saying and doing just that and this ain't no fairy tale and that creature was very real.

Don't you believe in what you have seen with your own eyes and have heard with your own ears?[/QUOTE]

TBH, I think you are nuts.  Lol.[/QUOTE]


lol... sure, thats what they all say.[/QUOTE]

Well, I've never seen a talking serpent.  Lol.    I see PEOPLE who are brainwashed and ignorant perhaps.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> Well, I've never seen a talking serpent. Lol.  I see PEOPLE who are brainwashed and ignorant perhaps.




Who do you think is doing the brainwashing of ignorant people if not a talking serpent? Can people who have had the misfortune of being deceived in this way be more accurately described than by saying that they are possessed by a devil?

Think about it. They claim to have the power to grant eternal life to those who do the exact opposite of what the God of the story promises results in life, exactly like the talking serpent of the fairy tale said that Adam and Eve could do the opposite of what God commands and they would not die. Once bitten many die and never recover.

It really does't require any intellectual effort at all to see in reality that which is described in fantastical tales with imaginative descriptions of PEOPLE that actually exist..


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never seen a talking serpent. Lol.  I see PEOPLE who are brainwashed and ignorant perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think is doing the brainwashing of ignorant people if not a talking serpent?
> 
> Think about it. They claim to have the power to grant eternal life to those who do the exact opposite of what the God of the story promises results in life, exactly like the talking serpent of the fairy tale said that Adam and Eve could do the opposite of what God commands and they would not die.
> 
> It really does't require any intellectual effort at all to see in reality that which is described in fantastical tales with imaginative descriptions of PEOPLE that actually exist..
Click to expand...


I think it's because they are ignorant people and they truly believe these fantastical stories.    When something has been pounded into your head since the time you were born, and scare tactics that have been passed on from generation to generation . . . well, this is what you get.  Same with Islam and most other religions.  I think a lot of people who flock towards these types of beliefs have problems dealing with real life and that their lives are going to end someday too.  

Of course no one can say for SURE whether there is some kind of "god figure or gods" as there is no evidence, and some people will cling to their beliefs because that is all they have in this life.  Some of these people are actually suffering on the inside.  I suppose that means I should be a bit nicer and more gentle in my approach, but I find them to be extremely annoying people.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Well, I've never seen a talking serpent. Lol.  I see PEOPLE who are brainwashed and ignorant perhaps.



Do you not comprehend what an allegory is? Does it not register in your brain that way long ago, before we had moving pictures and CGI or special effects, the way people often told stories was through allegories? It was a way to portray a vivid image in order to make a more profound point because simple words weren't sufficient to explain the magnanimous message trying to be conveyed. There was never an actual snake who talked... it was symbolic. Presented in a way that conveyed a certain image in order to make the point. Why did da Vinci paint the Mona Lisa smiling but not showing her teeth? Was it because she was toothless, do you think? Or maybe it was because she was ashamed of her ugly teeth? OR.... maybe something more profound was being conveyed? We have to look deeper than the superficial, especially when it comes to things from distant times. We can't translate things into modern context and draw ignorant assumptions.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never seen a talking serpent. Lol.  I see PEOPLE who are brainwashed and ignorant perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think is doing the brainwashing of ignorant people if not a talking serpent?
> 
> Think about it. They claim to have the power to grant eternal life to those who do the exact opposite of what the God of the story promises results in life, exactly like the talking serpent of the fairy tale said that Adam and Eve could do the opposite of what God commands and they would not die.
> 
> It really does't require any intellectual effort at all to see in reality that which is described in fantastical tales with imaginative descriptions of PEOPLE that actually exist..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's because they are ignorant people and they truly believe these fantastical stories.    When something has been pounded into your head since the time you were born, and scare tactics that have been passed on from generation to generation . . . well, this is what you get.  Same with Islam and most other religions.  I think a lot of people who flock towards these types of beliefs have problems dealing with real life and that their lives are going to end someday too.
> 
> Of course no one can say for SURE whether there is some kind of "god figure or gods" as there is no evidence, and some people will cling to their beliefs because that is all they have in this life.  Some of these people are actually suffering on the inside.  I suppose that means I should be a bit nicer and more gentle in my approach, but I find them to be extremely annoying people.
Click to expand...



Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I am just pointing out that these fantastical stories were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people and anyone who would teach others that they are historical documents recording actual events that should be taken literally fits perfectly the detailed scriptural descriptions and imaginative figurative allusions to deceitful low-life people portrayed as brazenly deceitful talking serpents dressed up like enlightened beings who are always on the prowl for the gullible.


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never seen a talking serpent. Lol.  I see PEOPLE who are brainwashed and ignorant perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not comprehend what an allegory is? Does it not register in your brain that way long ago, before we had moving pictures and CGI or special effects, the way people often told stories was through allegories? It was a way to portray a vivid image in order to make a more profound point because simple words weren't sufficient to explain the magnanimous message trying to be conveyed. There was never an actual snake who talked... it was symbolic. Presented in a way that conveyed a certain image in order to make the point. Why did da Vinci paint the Mona Lisa smiling but not showing her teeth? Was it because she was toothless, do you think? Or maybe it was because she was ashamed of her ugly teeth? OR.... maybe something more profound was being conveyed? We have to look deeper than the superficial, especially when it comes to things from distant times. We can't translate things into modern context and draw ignorant assumptions.
Click to expand...


Right, it's nothing more than a story book based on ancient beliefs.  BUT, people back then certainly did attribute natural occurrences to acts of gods or a god back in the old days.  That is because they did not understand how the world worked or science.  So you are wrong.


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Right, it's nothing more than a story book based on ancient beliefs. BUT, people back then certainly did attribute natural occurrences to acts of gods or a god back in the old days. That is because they did not understand how the world worked or science. So you are wrong.



Humans have ALWAYS done that and they still do that.  Which is MY point... there's a reason humans do that and no other species does. We have it in our DNA... it's an inherent thing that makes us what we are. We are spiritually connected to something greater than ourselves.... we always have been and always will be. We can't simply pretend like that doesn't matter and it's all made up nonsense... that doesn't comport with rationality. 

We are inspired by something to be more than what we are. We have the inspiration to learn and grow and expand on what we know. This stems from our spiritual awareness of something greater than ourselves. And yes... this spiritual awareness that we inherently have as humans often manifests itself into supernatural beliefs in things that aren't real... religions that are false... concocted notions by men who are grappling with their own spiritual understanding. 

You can understand HOW science works all day long... do you know WHY science works? Why does a molecule of oxygen compel itself to bond with two molecules of hydrogen when it doesn't have to? If it didn't, we couldn't have water.... but it does... why? Why do certain atomic particles become electrically charged while others don't? What IS electricity? What IS light? We know what they do and how they work... but WHY?   You see... there is nothing in the laws of physics which says it HAS to be that way, it just is.  So while science is very useful at explaining HOW the universe works, it cannot explain WHY.


----------



## ChrisL

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, it's nothing more than a story book based on ancient beliefs. BUT, people back then certainly did attribute natural occurrences to acts of gods or a god back in the old days. That is because they did not understand how the world worked or science. So you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have ALWAYS done that and they still do that.  Which is MY point... there's a reason humans do that and no other species does. We have it in our DNA... it's an inherent thing that makes us what we are. We are spiritually connected to something greater than ourselves.... we always have been and always will be. We can't simply pretend like that doesn't matter and it's all made up nonsense... that doesn't comport with rationality.
> 
> We are inspired by something to be more than what we are. We have the inspiration to learn and grow and expand on what we know. This stems from our spiritual awareness of something greater than ourselves. And yes... this spiritual awareness that we inherently have as humans often manifests itself into supernatural beliefs in things that aren't real... religions that are false... concocted notions by men who are grappling with their own spiritual understanding.
> 
> You can understand HOW science works all day long... do you know WHY science works? Why does a molecule of oxygen compel itself to bond with two molecules of hydrogen when it doesn't have to? If it didn't, we couldn't have water.... but it does... why? Why do certain atomic particles become electrically charged while others don't? What IS electricity? What IS light? We know what they do and how they work... but WHY?   You see... there is nothing in the laws of physics which says it HAS to be that way, it just is.  So while science is very useful at explaining HOW the universe works, it cannot explain WHY.
Click to expand...


That means nothing at all.  Yes, we are natural "story tellers."  We feel a need to explain that which we don't understand, such as labeling things as "good" and "evil."  I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.



Scientific discoveries have effectively disproven the literal interpretation of the story of Genesis but since the story is not about the creation of the universe, solar system, first humans, animals or plants on earth science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific discoveries have effectively disproven the literal interpretation of the story of Genesis but since the story is not about the creation of the universe, solar system, first humans, animals or plants on earth science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.
Click to expand...


It is about all of those things.  Lol.  Have you ever read the Bible?


----------



## ChrisL

People LITERALLY believed these things for thousands of years.  Now that they have been proven to be untrue, people say "oh, they are just parables."  Lol.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific discoveries have effectively disproven the literal interpretation of the story of Genesis but since the story is not about the creation of the universe, solar system, first humans, animals or plants on earth science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is about all of those things.  Lol.  Have you ever read the Bible?
Click to expand...



Everything depends upon how one looks at it.

When it is written that God said let there be light and there was light and the light separated the darkness it is actually a figurative depiction of the time when the law was given as a light that teaches people to distinguish between clean and unclean, good and evil, true and false, light and darkness, life and death.

Every other recorded act of God during the creation of heaven and earth has a deeper level of meaning that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used including the subject of heaven and earth, the world above and the world below.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> People LITERALLY believed these things for thousands of years. Now that they have been proven to be untrue, people say "oh, they are just parables." Lol.




The NT clearly states that Jesus spoke only in parables to crowds but explained everything clearly only to his disciples in private and even then they had trouble comprehending. Whatever he said to them in private was never written down in plain language..

Why would you find it surprising that the NT itself was written in the same way that Jesus spoke and taught which is in the same tradition as the OT was written?

however many people have been deceived into believing that a talking serpent is an invisible  disembodied entity that tries to enter people minds in order to trick them into doing naughty things they all probably learned that superstitious nonsense from an actual talking serpent who is only invisible to those whose eyes have been blinded.


The manual of discipline of the dead sea scrolls clearly shows that there was hidden meaning in the law that was to be kept secret from froward people for fear of the revelation inducing apostasy.



*Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.*


*No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].


Manual of Discipline*


----------



## Boss

ChrisL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, it's nothing more than a story book based on ancient beliefs. BUT, people back then certainly did attribute natural occurrences to acts of gods or a god back in the old days. That is because they did not understand how the world worked or science. So you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have ALWAYS done that and they still do that.  Which is MY point... there's a reason humans do that and no other species does. We have it in our DNA... it's an inherent thing that makes us what we are. We are spiritually connected to something greater than ourselves.... we always have been and always will be. We can't simply pretend like that doesn't matter and it's all made up nonsense... that doesn't comport with rationality.
> 
> We are inspired by something to be more than what we are. We have the inspiration to learn and grow and expand on what we know. This stems from our spiritual awareness of something greater than ourselves. And yes... this spiritual awareness that we inherently have as humans often manifests itself into supernatural beliefs in things that aren't real... religions that are false... concocted notions by men who are grappling with their own spiritual understanding.
> 
> You can understand HOW science works all day long... do you know WHY science works? Why does a molecule of oxygen compel itself to bond with two molecules of hydrogen when it doesn't have to? If it didn't, we couldn't have water.... but it does... why? Why do certain atomic particles become electrically charged while others don't? What IS electricity? What IS light? We know what they do and how they work... but WHY?   You see... there is nothing in the laws of physics which says it HAS to be that way, it just is.  So while science is very useful at explaining HOW the universe works, it cannot explain WHY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means nothing at all.  Yes, we are natural "story tellers."  We feel a need to explain that which we don't understand, such as labeling things as "good" and "evil."  I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.
Click to expand...


Ask yourself, do other living things in nature recognize "good" and "evil"? Where do you believe that comes from? It's not found elsewhere in nature. It comes from our spiritual awareness. 

You've given examples of things we didn't understand which we figured out because we were inspired to seek answers and further our understanding of the universe. Again, an attribute we have as a result of our spiritual awareness. You never did explain what is electricity and light and why do they function as they do in our universe... and you can't. You can only explain how they work. 

We don't know everything but we know enough to realize our physical universe had a beginning because it is in motion and it couldn't be in motion unless something set it into motion. Simple logic dictates that physical nature and a physical universe could not have created itself. Some outside force must have acted to create our physical universe. We combine that simple logic with our undying and never-ending human spiritual connection and it makes sense. Disregard all "religious" incarnations and understand that we are spiritual creatures whether you like it or not... it's just who we are. And there IS a reason.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, it's nothing more than a story book based on ancient beliefs. BUT, people back then certainly did attribute natural occurrences to acts of gods or a god back in the old days. That is because they did not understand how the world worked or science. So you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have ALWAYS done that and they still do that.  Which is MY point... there's a reason humans do that and no other species does. We have it in our DNA... it's an inherent thing that makes us what we are. We are spiritually connected to something greater than ourselves.... we always have been and always will be. We can't simply pretend like that doesn't matter and it's all made up nonsense... that doesn't comport with rationality.
> 
> We are inspired by something to be more than what we are. We have the inspiration to learn and grow and expand on what we know. This stems from our spiritual awareness of something greater than ourselves. And yes... this spiritual awareness that we inherently have as humans often manifests itself into supernatural beliefs in things that aren't real... religions that are false... concocted notions by men who are grappling with their own spiritual understanding.
> 
> You can understand HOW science works all day long... do you know WHY science works? Why does a molecule of oxygen compel itself to bond with two molecules of hydrogen when it doesn't have to? If it didn't, we couldn't have water.... but it does... why? Why do certain atomic particles become electrically charged while others don't? What IS electricity? What IS light? We know what they do and how they work... but WHY?   You see... there is nothing in the laws of physics which says it HAS to be that way, it just is.  So while science is very useful at explaining HOW the universe works, it cannot explain WHY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means nothing at all.  Yes, we are natural "story tellers."  We feel a need to explain that which we don't understand, such as labeling things as "good" and "evil."  I've given you plenty of examples of things that people actually really did believe that have been proven to be false once they are better understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask yourself, do other living things in nature recognize "good" and "evil"? Where do you believe that comes from? It's not found elsewhere in nature. It comes from our spiritual awareness.
> 
> You've given examples of things we didn't understand which we figured out because we were inspired to seek answers and further our understanding of the universe. Again, an attribute we have as a result of our spiritual awareness. You never did explain what is electricity and light and why do they function as they do in our universe... and you can't. You can only explain how they work.
> 
> We don't know everything but we know enough to realize our physical universe had a beginning because it is in motion and it couldn't be in motion unless something set it into motion. Simple logic dictates that physical nature and a physical universe could not have created itself. Some outside force must have acted to create our physical universe. We combine that simple logic with our undying and never-ending human spiritual connection and it makes sense. Disregard all "religious" incarnations and understand that we are spiritual creatures whether you like it or not... it's just who we are. And there IS a reason.
Click to expand...

Humans' sense of "self" and ability to rationalize abstract concepts has nothing to do with your invented, magical spirit realms. It's a function of a much more complex brain.


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> People LITERALLY believed these things for thousands of years. Now that they have been proven to be untrue, people say "oh, they are just parables." Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NT clearly states that Jesus spoke only in parables to crowds but explained everything clearly only to his disciples in private and even then they had trouble comprehending. Whatever he said to them in private was never written down in plain language..
> 
> Why would you find it surprising that the NT itself was written in the same way that Jesus spoke and taught which is in the same tradition as the OT was written?
> 
> however many people have been deceived into believing that a talking serpent is an invisible  disembodied entity that tries to enter people minds in order to trick them into doing naughty things they all probably learned that superstitious nonsense from an actual talking serpent who is only invisible to those whose eyes have been blinded.
> 
> 
> The manual of discipline of the dead sea scrolls clearly shows that there was hidden meaning in the law that was to be kept secret from froward people for fear of the revelation inducing apostasy.
> 
> 
> 
> *Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.*
> 
> 
> *No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].
> 
> 
> Manual of Discipline*
Click to expand...


That is not true at all.  People really believed these things for thousands of years.  Lol.  A lot of people STILL believe them.


----------



## ChrisL

The Bible is a book written by men who were ignorant of the world around them and felt a need to explain things, and also to put the "fear of God" into people for control purposes.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> People LITERALLY believed these things for thousands of years. Now that they have been proven to be untrue, people say "oh, they are just parables." Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NT clearly states that Jesus spoke only in parables to crowds but explained everything clearly only to his disciples in private and even then they had trouble comprehending. Whatever he said to them in private was never written down in plain language..
> 
> Why would you find it surprising that the NT itself was written in the same way that Jesus spoke and taught which is in the same tradition as the OT was written?
> 
> however many people have been deceived into believing that a talking serpent is an invisible  disembodied entity that tries to enter people minds in order to trick them into doing naughty things they all probably learned that superstitious nonsense from an actual talking serpent who is only invisible to those whose eyes have been blinded.
> 
> 
> The manual of discipline of the dead sea scrolls clearly shows that there was hidden meaning in the law that was to be kept secret from froward people for fear of the revelation inducing apostasy.
> 
> 
> 
> *Any knowledge which the expositor of the law may posses but which may have to remain arcane to the ordinary layman, he shall not keep hidden from them; for in their case there need be no fear that it might induce apostasy.*
> 
> 
> *No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].
> 
> 
> Manual of Discipline*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true at all.  People really believed these things for thousands of years.  Lol.  A lot of people STILL believe them.
Click to expand...



Yes, you are right. Maybe I wasn't clear.

It is true that the vast majority of people really believed these stories and many still do. It is also true that the hidden meaning was held back from the uninitiated including uninitiated Jews as can be seen in the quotes posted from the dead sea scrolls.. It was a way to keep the population easy to manage while providing a smooth living for the few who were privy to the ' secrets of the kingdom of heaven". With everyone blind crippled deaf or dead, society itself was like a devils playground to the few who could live with themselves prospering on easy street with their eyes wide open knowing it was at everyone else's suffering and expense..

Thats what Jesus meant by saying that no one lights a candle only to put it under a bushel. He was pissed off that they would keep the way to life from being made clear from even their own people.

Thats why he asked them how they could expect to escape the condemnation of hell.

It is also why many high ranking religious authorities asked where Jesus got his teaching, not because it was so remarkable to them but because it was supposed to be a secret.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Humans' sense of "self" and ability to rationalize abstract concepts has nothing to do with your invented, magical spirit realms. It's a function of a much more complex brain.



There are no magical spirit realms. We are inherently connected to the one and only spiritual nature which created the physical universe in which we reside. Other animals are capable of abstract rationalization. Our complex brain has nothing to do with it and IF it did, we'd see this evidence in all upper primates who have essentially the same functional brain parts as us. 

The notion you are promoting is absurd on it's face... you are essentially claiming we are sophisticated enough to conceptualize something but too stupid to understand it's fake. That doesn't make rational sense. But rationality doesn't make sense when you're trying so hard to reject something so obvious.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans' sense of "self" and ability to rationalize abstract concepts has nothing to do with your invented, magical spirit realms. It's a function of a much more complex brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no magical spirit realms. We are inherently connected to the one and only spiritual nature which created the physical universe in which we reside. Other animals are capable of abstract rationalization. Our complex brain has nothing to do with it and IF it did, we'd see this evidence in all upper primates who have essentially the same functional brain parts as us.
> 
> The notion you are promoting is absurd on it's face... you are essentially claiming we are sophisticated enough to conceptualize something but too stupid to understand it's fake. That doesn't make rational sense. But rationality doesn't make sense when you're trying so hard to reject something so obvious.
Click to expand...

I agree. There are no magical spirit realms..... other than the ones you have created. 

There's no reason to accept your proselytizing about some connection to magical spirit realms. Those are entirely your claim with not a single bit of evidence to support such a statement. Your claims to gods are no different than all the other claims to gods, none of which have ever been substantiated. So tell us how to rationalize your gods and your magical spirit realms as opposed to all the gods and magical spirit realms that were invented before yours.

The fact is, as you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that reside in us still, that have proven successful over evolutionary time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures. 

We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident_ in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also _see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.

For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have _better _morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.


----------



## emilynghiem

forkup said:


> Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree,  that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.



Hi forkup I'm going to backtrack to the first reply I see from you.  Although we may not agree, I agree with how your presentation and content is consistent with your arguments. I think that is enough to reconcile between yours and others. We do not have to believe or see things the same to align on points of agreement and disagreement and communicate and work things out using our own respective systems.

1. first all of I see that you do not get or follow any of the traditional religious symbolism for how the past is described such as Adam and Eve and I presume Noah's Ark and genesis as this is too simplistic and you are going by historical and geographical steps of development.
fine, I see no need to use an "abstract" way of painting the story of humanity if you are into "realism". The same story can be told using allegory or using nonfiction journalism/science, and clearly you speak the latter.

2. given that you want the realist historic way of describing humanity's past and future,
what do you think of this idea of describing the stages of development of humanity as moving from "retributive justice" to "restorative justice."
Are you okay with describing the ups and downs, ins and outs, and generally dramatic human learning curve in terms of a "collective grief and recovery process" where humans go through denial numbness and rejection, anger and projection of blame expressed as war and violence, before going through bargaining and resolution to finally come to peace.

Do you believe this is cyclical and we will always repeat the same patterns.

Do you believe this is progressing to a critical point, where human knowledge will converge to some culimination and finally put all the answers together and solve the problems as a collaborative society of nations and tribes organizing and managing resources to serve the whole.

3. Even if we don't agree if humanity is going in circles, going downhill fast, or heading toward peace and justice and spiritual/social maturity,
can we at least agree there are both ways of interpreting the Bible and religion. It can tell the story of humanity as going to hell, or heading toward heavenly peace.

Are you okay with  interpreting the Bible and religions as symbolising this higher process?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans' sense of "self" and ability to rationalize abstract concepts has nothing to do with your invented, magical spirit realms. It's a function of a much more complex brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no magical spirit realms. We are inherently connected to the one and only spiritual nature which created the physical universe in which we reside. Other animals are capable of abstract rationalization. Our complex brain has nothing to do with it and IF it did, we'd see this evidence in all upper primates who have essentially the same functional brain parts as us.
> 
> The notion you are promoting is absurd on it's face... you are essentially claiming we are sophisticated enough to conceptualize something but too stupid to understand it's fake. That doesn't make rational sense. But rationality doesn't make sense when you're trying so hard to reject something so obvious.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss what about people who describe some of the negative energies and entities as demonic forces or karmic influences from the past.

Can't that still be part of the scientific world as energy and laws of cause and effect and how these manifest in the world or worlds/dimensions?

Isn't there a way of describing different levels of energy and vibration where it is science and not magic/supernatural/make believe?


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> If Adam and Eve were the first humans who were Kain and Abel's wife?



The Bible does not say who Cain’s wife was.  Many think that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc.  Very likely that Adam and Eve had many other children and perhaps grandchildren of Adam and Eve were living at the time.


----------



## james bond

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
Click to expand...


I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke.  You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.


----------



## hobelim

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke.  You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
Click to expand...



If they made an error and marked time by the month with twelve months in a year then Noah lived to be about 79 years old and it took him ten years to build the ark and by that measure methuselah lived to be 81.  Probably twice as old as the average life span back then. Must have seemed miraculous at the time but there was really nothing supernatural or extraordinary about it knowing what the average life span is now..

To insist that Noah actually lived to be 950 years old because "people lived longer back then" as a result of their diet or some other such malarkey really is just fartsmoke.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post.  We are done, sir.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
Click to expand...


Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.


----------



## emilynghiem

hobelim said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke.  You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they made an error and marked time by the month with twelve months in a year then Noah lived to be about 79 years old and it took him ten years to build the ark and by that measure methuselah lived to be 81.  Probably twice as old as the average life span back then. Must have seemed miraculous at the time but there was really nothing supernatural or extraordinary about it knowing what the average life span is now..
> 
> To insist that Noah actually lived to be 950 years old because "people lived longer back then" as a result of their diet or some other such malarkey really is just fartsmoke.
Click to expand...


Dear hobelim Mudda and james bond
I'm sure you could call garbage science "fartsmoke" that wasted people's time in conflict over
* whether the solar system was geocentric or heliocentric
* whether the Brontosaurus actually existed as a separate species of dinosaur
or was an accidental composite of two other established species
* whether surgeons should wash their hands in between operations if indeed
there were "invisible" germs causing infections that were killing patients.

Remember the first doctor to theorize that before microscopes were invented that
"proved the existence" of these microscopic bacteria and viruses was ostracized
from his profession for spouting such an improvable theory and demanding change based on it.

Even with this in its history, science still continues today, and is used to correct errors.
You can call junk science for what it is, and it doesn't prevent people from using science the right way


----------



## emilynghiem

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke.  You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
Click to expand...


Dear james bond: If you and I put together scientific research and replicable studies on spiritual healing, for example, that bridged the gap between science and religion as not conflicting with each other, then this research would hold up to scientific review, REGARDLESS of naysayers like Mudda objecting the whole time.

In fact, we could make the Mudda 's and other naysayers of teh world
the CONTROL group and compare the success rate of people who WON'T forgive and work with opposing groups 
to the success rate of people who DO choose to forgive and find ways to work together despite differences.

And show which group does better in terms of mental and physical health and recovery times.
And which group has more diverse partnerships in solving mutiple problems instead of delegating
undersolved conflcit to govt to decide (instead of the people involve in the suit actully work out those issues here).


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Adam and Eve were the first humans who were Kain and Abel's wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible does not say who Cain’s wife was.  Many think that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc.  Very likely that Adam and Eve had many other children and perhaps grandchildren of Adam and Eve were living at the time.
Click to expand...


They met just simple other human beings (or pre-human beings). Eve is the mother of all human beings in a similiar way how Mary is the mother of god - who is the creator of all and everything. When Eve for example gave Adam the fruit of the tree of the cogntion of good and evil she did not know what god said to Adam before she existed. Only Adam knew. You can see in her the orginal innocence (the principle of love and life) and in Adam the original sin (the reason for the existance of death). Eve was by the way the most breath-taking beautiful woman ever existed.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
Click to expand...

There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age. 

Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## Mudda

Boss said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't read long winded fartsmoke...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter because your mind is not going to ever be changed.
Click to expand...

I just told you, if you can prove God, I'll change my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke.  You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
Click to expand...

But I take my martini shaken, not stirred! 

In other words, you have nothing. Got it.


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
Click to expand...

Again, what's your real proof for this: "The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking."?


----------



## hobelim

emilynghiem said:


> Dear hobelim Mudda and james bond
> I'm sure you could call garbage science "fartsmoke"




What would you call a so called scientific paper that tries to prove that Noah lived for almost 1000 years yet disregards the fact that 950 divided by 12 just happens to equal the very reasonable age of 79.

Would you even bother to read any so called scientific paper that claims to prove the earth is only 6000 years old?


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.




There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean  under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation  from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..

Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.

Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean  under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation  from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..
> 
> Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.
> 
> Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.
Click to expand...

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean  under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation  from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..
> 
> Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.
> 
> Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.
Click to expand...



Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean  under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation  from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..
> 
> Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.
> 
> Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.
> 
> How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."
> 
> Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?
Click to expand...

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships. 

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean  under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation  from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..
> 
> Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.
> 
> Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.
> 
> How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."
> 
> Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.
> 
> If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.
Click to expand...


The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean  under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation  from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..
> 
> Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.
> 
> Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.
> 
> How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."
> 
> Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.
> 
> If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?
> 
> Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.
Click to expand...

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?


----------



## emilynghiem

hobelim said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear hobelim Mudda and james bond
> I'm sure you could call garbage science "fartsmoke"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you call a so called scientific paper that tries to prove that Noah lived for almost 1000 years yet disregards the fact that 950 divided by 12 just happens to equal the very reasonable age of 79.
> 
> Would you even bother to read any so called scientific paper that claims to prove the earth is only 6000 years old?
Click to expand...


Dear hobelim
1. for the 6000 year argument, most people I know can reconcile this with the interpretation
of 6 ages and not literal years, and that it refers to the Hebrew/Mosaic Lineage, which Adam represents.
This can be corrected under Christian rebuke.
If you are nontheist and don't commit to enforce scripture, then you
may not have the same success rate in reconciling fellow believers
on a common interpretation. But where 2-3 believers have committed
to reconcile by God's truth through Christ Jesus, this point can be resolved.

2. for the age of Noah, again that cannot be proven in this day and time.
Better to focus on spiritual healing that can "bring people back from the dead"
there are cases of enhanced healing that CAN be replicated for research studies
on correlation if causality cannot be proven (between forgiveness:healing : : unforgiveness:illness)

Again if people are approached by their peers seeking correction,
alignment and agreement in Christ, the result is different from
opponents presenting arguments for the purpose of derailing beliefs.

If we address each other in our respective contexts, we have a better
chance of effective communication and agreed understanding, including corrections in that spirit.

3. So I am not debating or denying the faults or wrongs with these arguments,
but am saying the best way to correct them is peer-to-peer review and rebuke to
establish common truth by shared faith, not coming at each other as adversaries.
Of course, the points will be denied and then you'll stay stuck! taking that approach!


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean  under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation  from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..
> 
> Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.
> 
> Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.
> 
> 
> 
> The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.
> 
> How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."
> 
> Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.
> 
> If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?
> 
> Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.
> 
> The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?
Click to expand...


Hi Hollie you remind me of scientists taking the global warming arguments, debunking each other,
and using that as justification for rejecting someone's entire political agenda as abusing science.

Can we get over it already?

Instead of debating back and forth about Global Warming, why not just focus on reducing pollution and toxic waste,
preserving ecosystems and restoring natural resources and wildlife? We don't need to agree on GW to do all that work that matters more.

Same with this Noah's ark/creation/evolution timeline.
I'd say more lives and health of people, planet and society would be saved
by studying Spiritual Healing and proving how that works  universally so everyone can use it
and quit dying of diseases, crimes, abuse, and addictions that would be prevented or cured.

We don't need to agree on Adam and Eve, Noah, Floods or Talking Snakes
to do the medical research on spiritual healing to show positive results can be replicated,
and this same process works on atheists as theists, Christians and nonchristians,
because forgiveness/unforgiveness affects the mind/body and relations of people universally.

I am tempted to make a bet between American and Asian scientists and scholars
on which country will be the first to recognize spiritual healing through medical research
and establish it as public knowledge: America or China. Although China has a more abusive
record on suppressing religious freedom, the need for medical support for the massive
Chinese populations may necessitate research into spiritual healing for its cost effectiveness.

And while America boasts of having religious freedom and academic/intellectual freedom to
explore creative innovations, this crazed phase of rejecting anything traditionally religious or
conservative has shut down the freedom of information and thought to even CONSIDER
medical research on spiritual healing as many doctors and scientists have advocated for
after studying this through their own observations and realizing it can be done.

Maybe China can get over its politics before America can. I'd like to challenge both
nations and see who can be the first to prove this and maybe win a Nobel Prize
for bridging the gap between science and religion, once and for all, by proving
they are not in conflict but both can be used to represent universal stages of human experience and development.


----------



## Mudda

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.
> 
> How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."
> 
> Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.
> 
> If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?
> 
> Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.
> 
> The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie you remind me of scientists taking the global warming arguments, debunking each other,
> and using that as justification for rejecting someone's entire political agenda as abusing science.
> 
> Can we get over it already?
> 
> Instead of debating back and forth about Global Warming, why not just focus on reducing pollution and toxic waste,
> preserving ecosystems and restoring natural resources and wildlife? We don't need to agree on GW to do all that work that matters more.
> 
> Same with this Noah's ark/creation/evolution timeline.
> I'd say more lives and health of people, planet and society would be saved
> by studying Spiritual Healing and proving how that works  universally so everyone can use it
> and quit dying of diseases, crimes, abuse, and addictions that would be prevented or cured.
> 
> We don't need to agree on Adam and Eve, Noah, Floods or Talking Snakes
> to do the medical research on spiritual healing to show positive results can be replicated,
> and this same process works on atheists as theists, Christians and nonchristians,
> because forgiveness/unforgiveness affects the mind/body and relations of people universally.
> 
> I am tempted to make a bet between American and Asian scientists and scholars
> on which country will be the first to recognize spiritual healing through medical research
> and establish it as public knowledge: America or China. Although China has a more abusive
> record on suppressing religious freedom, the need for medical support for the massive
> Chinese populations may necessitate research into spiritual healing for its cost effectiveness.
> 
> And while America boasts of having religious freedom and academic/intellectual freedom to
> explore creative innovations, this crazed phase of rejecting anything traditionally religious or
> conservative has shut down the freedom of information and thought to even CONSIDER
> medical research on spiritual healing as many doctors and scientists have advocated for
> after studying this through their own observations and realizing it can be done.
> 
> Maybe China can get over its politics before America can. I'd like to challenge both
> nations and see who can be the first to prove this and maybe win a Nobel Prize
> for bridging the gap between science and religion, once and for all, by proving
> they are not in conflict but both can be used to represent universal stages of human experience and development.
Click to expand...

I was cold so I posted more hot air

"Hi Hollie you remind me of scientists taking the global warming arguments, debunking each other,
and using that as justification for rejecting someone's entire political agenda as abusing science.

Can we get over it already?

Instead of debating back and forth about Global Warming, why not just focus on reducing pollution and toxic waste,
preserving ecosystems and restoring natural resources and wildlife? We don't need to agree on GW to do all that work that matters more.

Same with this Noah's ark/creation/evolution timeline.
I'd say more lives and health of people, planet and society would be saved
by studying Spiritual Healing and proving how that works  universally so everyone can use it
and quit dying of diseases, crimes, abuse, and addictions that would be prevented or cured.

We don't need to agree on Adam and Eve, Noah, Floods or Talking Snakes
to do the medical research on spiritual healing to show positive results can be replicated,
and this same process works on atheists as theists, Christians and nonchristians,
because forgiveness/unforgiveness affects the mind/body and relations of people universally.

I am tempted to make a bet between American and Asian scientists and scholars
on which country will be the first to recognize spiritual healing through medical research
and establish it as public knowledge: America or China. Although China has a more abusive
record on suppressing religious freedom, the need for medical support for the massive
Chinese populations may necessitate research into spiritual healing for its cost effectiveness.

And while America boasts of having religious freedom and academic/intellectual freedom to
explore creative innovations, this crazed phase of rejecting anything traditionally religious or
conservative has shut down the freedom of information and thought to even CONSIDER
medical research on spiritual healing as many doctors and scientists have advocated for
after studying this through their own observations and realizing it can be done.

Maybe China can get over its politics before America can. I'd like to challenge both
nations and see who can be the first to prove this and maybe win a Nobel Prize
for bridging the gap between science and religion, once and for all, by proving
they are not in conflict but both can be used to represent universal stages of human experience and development."


----------



## ChrisL

There is a "gap" between science and religion because religion is just a bunch of fairy tales and stories, whereas science needs evidence of some kind to back up theories.


----------



## james bond

hobelim said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke.  You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they made an error and marked time by the month with twelve months in a year then Noah lived to be about 79 years old and it took him ten years to build the ark and by that measure methuselah lived to be 81.  Probably twice as old as the average life span back then. Must have seemed miraculous at the time but there was really nothing supernatural or extraordinary about it knowing what the average life span is now..
> 
> To insist that Noah actually lived to be 950 years old because "people lived longer back then" as a result of their diet or some other such malarkey really is just fartsmoke.
Click to expand...


Nyet.  We devolved.


----------



## james bond

emilynghiem said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke.  You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear james bond: If you and I put together scientific research and replicable studies on spiritual healing, for example, that bridged the gap between science and religion as not conflicting with each other, then this research would hold up to scientific review, REGARDLESS of naysayers like Mudda objecting the whole time.
> 
> In fact, we could make the Mudda 's and other naysayers of teh world
> the CONTROL group and compare the success rate of people who WON'T forgive and work with opposing groups
> to the success rate of people who DO choose to forgive and find ways to work together despite differences.
> 
> And show which group does better in terms of mental and physical health and recovery times.
> And which group has more diverse partnerships in solving mutiple problems instead of delegating
> undersolved conflcit to govt to decide (instead of the people involve in the suit actully work out those issues here).
Click to expand...


Good work.  Keep it up.  I'll comment if there are differences.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no biblical flood. There certainly is no evidence to support such a tale. That fable is just telling and retelling of stories that grew out of the last ice age.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
Click to expand...


I'm not ignoring those flood "stories," but Noah's flood was a global flood.  How do those other floods stack up?  What were their origin, i.e. where did the water come from?


----------



## james bond

Mudda said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke.  You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I take my martini shaken, not stirred!
> 
> In other words, you have nothing. Got it.
Click to expand...


I boored talking with you.  That's it my friend.


----------



## Militants

Consercvenses are when I hear on voices I hate God, Christ and Allah Akbar in forum . .


----------



## Uncensored2008

ChrisL said:


> I've known many, many people who claim to be "Christians."  They are NOT good people.  They prove it all the time!  Hypocrites who talk a big talk but FAIL at walking the walk.



Maybe the problem is that you're not a good person.


----------



## Militants

Jesus were only a profit. I care about my voices who are scarred when I am alone.


----------



## Militants

Christ are only a profit AHAHAHAHHHHHH.


----------



## Militants

Kim is suffering from CP injured Swedes ....


----------



## forkup

emilynghiem said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree,  that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi forkup I'm going to backtrack to the first reply I see from you.  Although we may not agree, I agree with how your presentation and content is consistent with your arguments. I think that is enough to reconcile between yours and others. We do not have to believe or see things the same to align on points of agreement and disagreement and communicate and work things out using our own respective systems.
> 
> 1. first all of I see that you do not get or follow any of the traditional religious symbolism for how the past is described such as Adam and Eve and I presume Noah's Ark and genesis as this is too simplistic and you are going by historical and geographical steps of development.
> fine, I see no need to use an "abstract" way of painting the story of humanity if you are into "realism". The same story can be told using allegory or using nonfiction journalism/science, and clearly you speak the latter.
> 
> 2. given that you want the realist historic way of describing humanity's past and future,
> what do you think of this idea of describing the stages of development of humanity as moving from "retributive justice" to "restorative justice."
> Are you okay with describing the ups and downs, ins and outs, and generally dramatic human learning curve in terms of a "collective grief and recovery process" where humans go through denial numbness and rejection, anger and projection of blame expressed as war and violence, before going through bargaining and resolution to finally come to peace.
> 
> Do you believe this is cyclical and we will always repeat the same patterns.
> 
> Do you believe this is progressing to a critical point, where human knowledge will converge to some culimination and finally put all the answers together and solve the problems as a collaborative society of nations and tribes organizing and managing resources to serve the whole.
> 
> 3. Even if we don't agree if humanity is going in circles, going downhill fast, or heading toward peace and justice and spiritual/social maturity,
> can we at least agree there are both ways of interpreting the Bible and religion. It can tell the story of humanity as going to hell, or heading toward heavenly peace.
> 
> Are you okay with  interpreting the Bible and religions as symbolising this higher process?
Click to expand...

1. You are right, I do not follow the traditional religious symbolism. I think on that point I'll give a personal anecdote. I was raised Roman Catholic and had bible class weekly until age 17. I was a like now a pragmatist and altough I felt that Jesus as described in the NT was a person worthy of following I, as I grew older developed doubts as to his divinity. So one day I asked my teacher. If I think the lessons as described in the NT are to be aspired to and I believe in the historical but not the divine Jesus, am I still a Roman Catholic? His response was a blunt no. At that time I couldn't understand why if Jesus preaches love and understanding, why his club doesn't allow any dissent. Now I do get it of course, if you don't follow the dogma you are a danger to the institution wich is organised religion. My point being I do understand some of the symbolism, I don't however believe in God itself. Nore do I feel I particulary need to follow him in order to be a good person. Hope I make sense on this point here.
2/3.I think I can claim I pretty thorough historical sense and I agree that human behavior is cyclical, I don't however agree with how it's cyclical. In my opinion human behavior can be boiled down to a pack mentality. Humans in general spent they're time looking for social groups. Family,friends,region,country, language and religion are all expressions of that need. Ppl want to belong and ppl want their particular social group to be dominant. Historically they'll fight to achieve this. Over the millenia the cost of that struggle has grown ever higher, culminating in WWI and WWII and the invention of the atom bomb. We have come to a point in history where the price to achieve dominance has grown so high we can literrally destroy ourselves. Humanity as a race can't afford all out struggle for dominance, I am sorry to say though that I don't see the fact that we would kill ourself as a indefinet deterent. I have some hope the world will become a place were rationality reigns supreme but I'm not sure. Maybe religion can help achieve this but, and here I'll come back to my reason of replying to these post on the forum. Strict religious dogma needs to go, since I feel that claiming absolute truth in matters of faith is historicaly been a big reason for strife. Not to mention plain wrong lol.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
Click to expand...

1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.


----------



## ChrisL

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
> 2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
> this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.
Click to expand...


Thanks be to GODS there are other sane people on this forum.  Lol.


----------



## xband

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



This is the chicken or egg argument commonly debated in scientific circles on who or what created the Universe. Being an old chicken farmer it takes a chicken to lay the egg but it takes an egg to hatch the chicken with the chicken representing God and the egg representing that the Universe hatched out of nothingness. Mind boggling.


----------



## emilynghiem

ChrisL said:


> There is a "gap" between science and religion because religion is just a bunch of fairy tales and stories, whereas science needs evidence of some kind to back up theories.



Dear ChrisL that's like trying to compare the arts with the sciences.
The arts are SUPPOSED to be symbolic representation. Duh!
Science is SUPPOSED to serve a different purpose and approach!

So if the SAME HUMAN BODY is depicted using science
that is DIFFERENT from someone depicting the human body
using ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION.

The human body is still what it is.
These two representations are both depicting the same body.

Same with how religions and science are ways of representing
patterns, cycles, relationships and stages of progress in the world.

The truth of what is going on, how the laws and processes work,
is still consistent regardless how this is depicted!

So for scientific contexts, people use that approach.
for teaching relationships and spiritual values/connections with people
that is where religions are used.

What is wrong with using each media in its respective context?


----------



## emilynghiem

ChrisL said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
> 2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
> this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks be to GODS there are other sane people on this forum.  Lol.
Click to expand...


Dear ChrisL we are all growing and evolving and expanding our understanding. Those who start with a religious background that rejects secularism may learn to include science as a helpful and necessary part; otherwise who were taught to reject religion as primitive mythology may learn the true message and meaning symbolized therein, and find that is so universally beneficial that the good in religions outweigh the bad.

We all start from our own corner of the world, and the rules we develop from experience, then grow to understand and include the experiences of others that are beyond ours.

So the evolution and sharing process is MUTUAL.

If you want other people's minds to open up and not stay stuck in the past, it is good to follow one's own standard, be open to change and not reject new ideas out of fear of defending one's own position instead of embracing and ADDING more knowledge from other sources and corroborating them.

All humanity is learning to piece our knowledge together,
to see the bigger picture of where life is heading, that none of us can contain on our own; it takes all of us collectively to capture as much knowledge and appreciation of the world as we can contain and amass.


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean  under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation  from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..
> 
> Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.
> 
> Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.
> 
> 
> 
> The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.
> 
> How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."
> 
> Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.
> 
> If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?
> 
> Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.
> 
> The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?
Click to expand...



Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. I'd like to see your renderings of a whale if you didn't know what one was. How would you even describe a whale without using the word whale if you only saw occasional surfacing or breaching from a distance?. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.

Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?

You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.

I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.

Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo,  australia, or the deserts of south america?

Take your time....


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.
> 
> How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."
> 
> Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.
> 
> If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?
> 
> Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.
> 
> The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.
> 
> Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?
> 
> You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.
> 
> I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.
> 
> Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo,  australia, or the deserts of south america?
> 
> Take your time....
Click to expand...

Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.

So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood. 

Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.

You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.

The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.

Take your time.


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further physical evidence of God.  Ancient people had perfect teeth.  They lived longer than us and were healthier.  For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs.  It took Noah 100 years to build the ark.  He was around 500 when God told him.  Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.
> 
> Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.
> 
> Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke.  You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I take my martini shaken, not stirred!
> 
> In other words, you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I boored talking with you.  That's it my friend.
Click to expand...

Ok, show me the scientific paper.


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.
> 
> How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."
> 
> Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?
> 
> 
> 
> Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.
> 
> If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?
> 
> Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.
> 
> The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.
> 
> Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?
> 
> You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.
> 
> I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.
> 
> Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo,  australia, or the deserts of south america?
> 
> Take your time....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.
> 
> So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.
> 
> Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.
> 
> You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.
> 
> The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.
> 
> Take your time.
Click to expand...



Technically,  the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.

Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished.  It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.

I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean,  that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain. 

Any description of the destructive aftermath of an asteroid hitting an ocean, lets say the Atlantic ocean, wouldn't need to be embellished.

Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.
> 
> If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?
> 
> Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.
> 
> The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.
> 
> Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?
> 
> You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.
> 
> I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.
> 
> Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo,  australia, or the deserts of south america?
> 
> Take your time....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.
> 
> So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.
> 
> Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.
> 
> You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.
> 
> The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.
> 
> Take your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically,  the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.
> 
> Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished.  It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.
> 
> I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean,  that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.
> 
> Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?
Click to expand...


Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so". 

Otherwise: 
Megafloods of the Ice Age


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?
> 
> Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.
> 
> 
> 
> Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.
> 
> The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.
> 
> Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?
> 
> You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.
> 
> I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.
> 
> Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo,  australia, or the deserts of south america?
> 
> Take your time....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.
> 
> So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.
> 
> Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.
> 
> You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.
> 
> The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.
> 
> Take your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically,  the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.
> 
> Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished.  It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.
> 
> I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean,  that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.
> 
> Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".
> 
> Otherwise:
> Megafloods of the Ice Age
Click to expand...



Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.

An asteroid instantly vaporizing billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere does.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.
> 
> The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.
> 
> Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?
> 
> You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.
> 
> I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.
> 
> Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo,  australia, or the deserts of south america?
> 
> Take your time....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.
> 
> So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.
> 
> Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.
> 
> You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.
> 
> The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.
> 
> Take your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically,  the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.
> 
> Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished.  It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.
> 
> I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean,  that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.
> 
> Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".
> 
> Otherwise:
> Megafloods of the Ice Age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.
Click to expand...

"...... because I say so".

It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.
> 
> Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?
> 
> You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.
> 
> I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.
> 
> Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo,  australia, or the deserts of south america?
> 
> Take your time....
> 
> 
> 
> Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.
> 
> So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.
> 
> Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.
> 
> You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.
> 
> The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.
> 
> Take your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Technically,  the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.
> 
> Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished.  It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.
> 
> I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean,  that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.
> 
> Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".
> 
> Otherwise:
> Megafloods of the Ice Age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...... because I say so".
> 
> It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.
Click to expand...



I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis  for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.
> 
> So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.
> 
> Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.
> 
> You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.
> 
> The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.
> 
> Take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically,  the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.
> 
> Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished.  It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.
> 
> I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean,  that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.
> 
> Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".
> 
> Otherwise:
> Megafloods of the Ice Age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...... because I say so".
> 
> It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis  for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.
Click to expand...


I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Pleistocene Ice Age


Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically,  the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.
> 
> Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished.  It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.
> 
> I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean,  that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.
> 
> Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".
> 
> Otherwise:
> Megafloods of the Ice Age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...... because I say so".
> 
> It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis  for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.
> 
> Pleistocene Ice Age
> 
> 
> Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.
Click to expand...



This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence"  what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.

Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by *torrential rain*?

Seriously?


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".
> 
> Otherwise:
> Megafloods of the Ice Age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...... because I say so".
> 
> It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis  for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.
> 
> Pleistocene Ice Age
> 
> 
> Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence"  what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.
> 
> Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by *torrential rain*?
> 
> Seriously?
Click to expand...

I made no claim about torrential rain.

I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.

You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.
> 
> 
> 
> "...... because I say so".
> 
> It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis  for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.
> 
> Pleistocene Ice Age
> 
> 
> Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence"  what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.
> 
> Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by *torrential rain*?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made no claim about torrential rain.
> 
> I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.
> 
> You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?
Click to expand...



You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...... because I say so".
> 
> It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis  for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.
> 
> Pleistocene Ice Age
> 
> 
> Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence"  what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.
> 
> Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by *torrential rain*?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made no claim about torrential rain.
> 
> I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.
> 
> You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.
Click to expand...


You're just making that up.

Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".
> 
> Otherwise:
> Megafloods of the Ice Age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...... because I say so".
> 
> It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis  for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.
> 
> Pleistocene Ice Age
> 
> 
> Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence"  what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.
> 
> Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by *torrential rain*?
> 
> Seriously?
Click to expand...

A hypothesis is not evidence. You will notice that hypothesis and evidence are spelled differently suggesting they are different words with different connotations / meanings.

Evidence suggests...... you know...... evidence. You are unable to supply such evidence. Evidence is what is used to support a hypothesis. That's why evidence is not spelled _hypothesis_.


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis  for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.
> 
> Pleistocene Ice Age
> 
> 
> Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence"  what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.
> 
> Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by *torrential rain*?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made no claim about torrential rain.
> 
> I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.
> 
> You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making that up.
> 
> Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.
Click to expand...


The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.

I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the  Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..

An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything perfectly and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.

Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky suddenly in the form of a worldwide deluge.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.
> 
> Pleistocene Ice Age
> 
> 
> Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence"  what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.
> 
> Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by *torrential rain*?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made no claim about torrential rain.
> 
> I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.
> 
> You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making that up.
> 
> Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.
> 
> I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the  Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..
> 
> An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.
> 
> Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?
Click to expand...

I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.

I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence"  what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.
> 
> Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by *torrential rain*?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> I made no claim about torrential rain.
> 
> I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.
> 
> You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making that up.
> 
> Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.
> 
> I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the  Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..
> 
> An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.
> 
> Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.
> 
> I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?
Click to expand...



Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&

Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes

Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made no claim about torrential rain.
> 
> I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.
> 
> You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making that up.
> 
> Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.
> 
> I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the  Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..
> 
> An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.
> 
> Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.
> 
> I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&
> 
> Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes
> 
> Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons
Click to expand...

So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just making that up.
> 
> Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.
> 
> I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the  Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..
> 
> An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.
> 
> Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.
> 
> I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&
> 
> Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes
> 
> Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.
Click to expand...



Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.

The splash itself would have looked exactly like the fountains of the deep opened up.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just making that up.
> 
> Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.
> 
> I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the  Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..
> 
> An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.
> 
> Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.
> 
> I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&
> 
> Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes
> 
> Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.
Click to expand...

That's a lovely hypothesis. But I'm not impressed with "..... because I say so".


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.
> 
> I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the  Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..
> 
> An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.
> 
> Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.
> 
> I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&
> 
> Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes
> 
> Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lovely hypothesis. But I'm not impressed with "..... because I say so".
Click to expand...



Did you think that someone was trying to impress you? Now thats funny. Do you even know how to have a civilized conversation?

Why is it that every time that I squeeze your head a foul and smelly pus comes out?


----------



## BreezeWood

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.
> 
> I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&
> 
> Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes
> 
> Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lovely hypothesis. But I'm not impressed with "..... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you think that someone was trying to impress you? Now thats funny. Do you even know how to have a civilized conversation?
> 
> Why is it that every time that I squeeze your head a foul and smelly pus comes out?
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.



_*stories, tales and fables tend to be revised ...*_

HOB, your scenario is a good hypothesis of what may have caused the great flood, so if the truth is discovered for a biblical event what is the deterrent from correcting the scriptures to reflect the actual event ?

though in this example how it was done is less important than its occurrence -

however the same for correcting other scriptures to find in the end the actual truth rather than what is pleasing for "christians" to read or are obvious fabrications.

.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.
> 
> I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&
> 
> Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes
> 
> Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lovely hypothesis. But I'm not impressed with "..... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you think that someone was trying to impress you? Now thats funny. Do you even know how to have a civilized conversation?
> 
> Why is it that every time that I squeeze your head a foul and smelly pus comes out?
Click to expand...

Getting angry and emotive does nothing to bolster your "..... because I say so"  attempt at argument.


----------



## zaangalewa

forkup said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree,  that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi forkup I'm going to backtrack to the first reply I see from you.  Although we may not agree, I agree with how your presentation and content is consistent with your arguments. I think that is enough to reconcile between yours and others. We do not have to believe or see things the same to align on points of agreement and disagreement and communicate and work things out using our own respective systems.
> 
> 1. first all of I see that you do not get or follow any of the traditional religious symbolism for how the past is described such as Adam and Eve and I presume Noah's Ark and genesis as this is too simplistic and you are going by historical and geographical steps of development.
> fine, I see no need to use an "abstract" way of painting the story of humanity if you are into "realism". The same story can be told using allegory or using nonfiction journalism/science, and clearly you speak the latter.
> 
> 2. given that you want the realist historic way of describing humanity's past and future,
> what do you think of this idea of describing the stages of development of humanity as moving from "retributive justice" to "restorative justice."
> Are you okay with describing the ups and downs, ins and outs, and generally dramatic human learning curve in terms of a "collective grief and recovery process" where humans go through denial numbness and rejection, anger and projection of blame expressed as war and violence, before going through bargaining and resolution to finally come to peace.
> 
> Do you believe this is cyclical and we will always repeat the same patterns.
> 
> Do you believe this is progressing to a critical point, where human knowledge will converge to some culimination and finally put all the answers together and solve the problems as a collaborative society of nations and tribes organizing and managing resources to serve the whole.
> 
> 3. Even if we don't agree if humanity is going in circles, going downhill fast, or heading toward peace and justice and spiritual/social maturity,
> can we at least agree there are both ways of interpreting the Bible and religion. It can tell the story of humanity as going to hell, or heading toward heavenly peace.
> 
> Are you okay with  interpreting the Bible and religions as symbolising this higher process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You are right, I do not follow the traditional religious symbolism. I think on that point I'll give a personal anecdote. I was raised Roman Catholic and had bible class weekly until age 17. I was a like now a pragmatist and altough I felt that Jesus as described in the NT was a person worthy of following I, as I grew older developed doubts as to his divinity. So one day I asked my teacher. If I think the lessons as described in the NT are to be aspired to and I believe in the historical but not the divine Jesus, am I still a Roman Catholic? His response was a blunt no.
Click to expand...


Short "no"? Be happy. A longer answer could had been the athanasian creed for example - what's by the way also the belief of orthodox, protestant and hopefully also evangelical Christians:
-----
_Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved._
-----



> At that time I couldn't understand why if Jesus preaches love and understanding, why his club doesn't allow any dissent. Now I do get it of course, if you don't follow the dogma you are a danger to the institution wich is organised religion. My point being I do understand some of the symbolism, I don't however believe in God itself. Nore do I feel I particulary need to follow him in order to be a good person. Hope I make sense on this point here.



You are a good Atheist who speaks about bad Catholics, because bad Catholics are not good Atheists like you - aren't they?



> 2/3.I think I can claim I pretty thorough historical sense and I agree that human behavior is cyclical,



Cyclical? Strange.



> I don't however agree with how it's cyclical. In my opinion human behavior can be boiled down to a pack mentality.



Our nature is it not to be alone. And our nature is also to be cursorial hunters. Even without a big intelligence we would be damned dangerous animals. So whatelse than a pack mentality do you expect?



> in general spent they're time looking for social groups. Family,friends,region,country, language and religion are all expressions of that need.



Sounds you need friends but do you like to to be a friend ... Hmm ... From all animals dogs know us in the best possible way - and what they tell us about us is not a story about monsters.



> to belong and ppl want their particular social group to be dominant. Historically they'll fight to achieve this. Over the millenia the cost of that struggle has grown ever higher, culminating in WWI and WWII



In WWI destroyed nationalistic states mutlinational empires like Austria-Hungaria or the Osman empire. The results of WW1 created crazy and mad situations all over the world and this situations created not only world war 2. 


> and the invention of the atom bomb. We have come to a point in history where the price to achieve dominance has grown so high we can literrally destroy ourselves.



Or we could build an arch.



> Humanity as a race can't afford all out struggle for dominance, I am sorry to say though that I don't see the fact that we would kill ourself as a indefinet deterent. I have some hope the world will become a place were rationality reigns supreme but I'm not sure. Maybe religion can help achieve this but, and here I'll come back to my reason of replying to these post on the forum. Strict religious dogma needs to go,



You never in your life was a Catholic - otherwise you would know what I don't speak about now.



> since I feel that claiming absolute truth in matters of faith is historicaly been a big reason for strife.



Concrete example?



> Not to mention plain wrong lol.



What is wrong? What you don't know?


----------



## forkup

zaangalewa said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree,  that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi forkup I'm going to backtrack to the first reply I see from you.  Although we may not agree, I agree with how your presentation and content is consistent with your arguments. I think that is enough to reconcile between yours and others. We do not have to believe or see things the same to align on points of agreement and disagreement and communicate and work things out using our own respective systems.
> 
> 1. first all of I see that you do not get or follow any of the traditional religious symbolism for how the past is described such as Adam and Eve and I presume Noah's Ark and genesis as this is too simplistic and you are going by historical and geographical steps of development.
> fine, I see no need to use an "abstract" way of painting the story of humanity if you are into "realism". The same story can be told using allegory or using nonfiction journalism/science, and clearly you speak the latter.
> 
> 2. given that you want the realist historic way of describing humanity's past and future,
> what do you think of this idea of describing the stages of development of humanity as moving from "retributive justice" to "restorative justice."
> Are you okay with describing the ups and downs, ins and outs, and generally dramatic human learning curve in terms of a "collective grief and recovery process" where humans go through denial numbness and rejection, anger and projection of blame expressed as war and violence, before going through bargaining and resolution to finally come to peace.
> 
> Do you believe this is cyclical and we will always repeat the same patterns.
> 
> Do you believe this is progressing to a critical point, where human knowledge will converge to some culimination and finally put all the answers together and solve the problems as a collaborative society of nations and tribes organizing and managing resources to serve the whole.
> 
> 3. Even if we don't agree if humanity is going in circles, going downhill fast, or heading toward peace and justice and spiritual/social maturity,
> can we at least agree there are both ways of interpreting the Bible and religion. It can tell the story of humanity as going to hell, or heading toward heavenly peace.
> 
> Are you okay with  interpreting the Bible and religions as symbolising this higher process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You are right, I do not follow the traditional religious symbolism. I think on that point I'll give a personal anecdote. I was raised Roman Catholic and had bible class weekly until age 17. I was a like now a pragmatist and altough I felt that Jesus as described in the NT was a person worthy of following I, as I grew older developed doubts as to his divinity. So one day I asked my teacher. If I think the lessons as described in the NT are to be aspired to and I believe in the historical but not the divine Jesus, am I still a Roman Catholic? His response was a blunt no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short "no"? Be happy. A longer answer could had been the athanasian creed for example - what's by the way also the belief of orthodox, protestant and - hopefully - also the evangelical Christians:
> -----
> _Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.
> 
> Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved_
> -----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At that time I couldn't understand why if Jesus preaches love and understanding, why his club doesn't allow any dissent. Now I do get it of course, if you don't follow the dogma you are a danger to the institution wich is organised religion. My point being I do understand some of the symbolism, I don't however believe in God itself. Nore do I feel I particulary need to follow him in order to be a good person. Hope I make sense on this point here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an atheist who speaks about bad Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2/3.I think I can claim I pretty thorough historical sense and I agree that human behavior is cyclical,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cyclical? Strange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't however agree with how it's cyclical. In my opinion human behavior can be boiled down to a pack mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nature is it not to be alone. And our nature is it to be cursorial hunters. Even without a big intelligence we would be damned dangerous animals. So whatelse than a pack mentality do you expect? Wer it not the three muskteris whi sang the song "One for all and all for one!" dsang teh thre Musketoers before they continued to sing "United we stand, divided we fall"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in general spent they're time looking for social groups. Family,friends,region,country, language and religion are all expressions of that need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need friends but you don't like to be a friend? Wat auotnifyo unwould ask dogs about human beings? Fromall animals tehy know usinthe ebst öpossible way - and wahtt hey tel about us is not  story about monsters. If yuo don't know how to speak with dogs then learn German. All other languages dogs have to translate frist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to belong and ppl want their particular social group to be dominant. Historically they'll fight to achieve this. Over the millenia the cost of that struggle has grown ever higher, culminating in WWI and WWII
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the invention of the atom bomb. We have come to a point in history where the price to achieve dominance has grown so high we can literrally destroy ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could build an arch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity as a race can't afford all out struggle for dominance, I am sorry to say though that I don't see the fact that we would kill ourself as a indefinet deterent. I have some hope the world will become a place were rationality reigns supreme but I'm not sure. Maybe religion can help achieve this but, and here I'll come back to my reason of replying to these post on the forum. Strict religious dogma needs to go,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never in your life was a Catholic - otherwise you would know what I don't speak about now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since I feel that claiming absolute truth in matters of faith is historicaly been a big reason for strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concrete example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention plain wrong lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong? What you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

[/Quote][/QUOTE]
1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one. I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
2,As to your nt blib.I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing. Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son? Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull but because the body count has become unsustainable.
5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.


----------



## zaangalewa

forkup said:


> ...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl



ppl? people?



> on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.



While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?



> I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.



That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.



> 2,As to your nt blib.



What?



> I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.



¿God is allknowing?



> Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?



Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?



> Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?



I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.



> 3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.



I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.



> 4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull



The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.



> but because the body count has become unsustainable.



?



> 5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.



Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're an atheist, there is no "proof."  I even have a good personal anecdote for this.
> 
> You will get your proof after you die.  It's either I'm right or you're right.  Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.
> 
> Now, back to the Bible and original sin.  Many people believe it's the truth.  I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible.  What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
> 2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
> this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.
Click to expand...


I wasn't going to discuss creation science so much in this forum, but use facts, reasoning, and historical truths.

Since you brought up Age of the Earth (part of evolutionary thought) and your link, it is based on this -- Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson .  The problem is radiometric dating is not accurate because of its assumptions.  Unfortunately, creation science does not have a peer-reviewed method to date the age of the earth (only hypothesis).  So, today I can only offer various arguments against radiometric dating.

Jonathon Woolf makes a good presentation of evolutionists’ arguments.  He starts by saying that evolutionists haven’t done a very good job of explaining "how" radiometric dating works.  See your link and my previous link.  He continues with some definitions and explanations of terms and explains the differences between elements and isotopes (also called “nuclides”) of those elements.

The major question is "how much of the nuclide was originally present in our sample?  In some cases, we don’t know.  Such cases are useless for radiometric dating.  We _must_ know the original quantity of the parent nuclide in order to date our sample radiometrically.  Fortunately, there are cases where we can do that.  Creation scientists content there are no cases where we can do it.

Woof states, "there’s a basic law of chemistry that says "Chemical processes like those that form minerals cannot distinguish between different nuclides of the same element." They simply can’t do it. If an element has more than one nuclide present, and a mineral forms in a magma melt that includes that element, the element’s different nuclides will appear in the mineral in precisely the same ratio that they occurred in the environment where and when the mineral was formed. This is the second axiom of radiometric dating.

There are evolutionists (evos) who claim water on Earth is older than the Sun:
"H2D+ becomes enriched relative to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 because the deuterated isotopologue is energetically favored at low temperatures. There is an energy barrier Δ_E_1 to return to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, i.e., 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, where Δ_E_1 ≈ 124 K, although the precise value depends on the nuclear spin of the reactants and products. The relatively modest value of Δ_E_1 restricts deuterium enrichments in 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to the coldest gas, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . Thus, deuterium-enriched water formation requires the right mix of environmental conditions: cold gas, gas-phase oxygen, and ionization."

In layman's terms, they are acknowledging that the number of protons, regardless of the number of neutrons, determines how atoms react chemically to form molecules -- but the number of neutrons does make a very tiny difference in the amount of heat liberated by the reaction.  So, for very light elements at temperatures close to absolute zero, chemical processes do actually differentiate very slightly between isotopes because of the barely measurable difference in heat involved in the reaction.

Woolf also recognizes this fact, "Note: It’s true that some natural processes favor some isotopes over others. Water molecules containing oxygen-16 are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen-18. However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon. The atoms used in radiometric dating techniques are mainly heavy atoms, so we can still use the axiom that mineral-forming processes can’t distinguish between different nuclides."

So, in general, it is the number of protons that determines how chemical bonds will be formed. The number of neutrons is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the ratio of isotopes in molten rocks does not change immediately when the rock hardens.  The age of the rock formation is supposedly determined by how much the ratio of isotopes changes AFTER the rock hardens (which presumes that enough time has elapsed for radioactive decay to change that ratio).  Yet, we still do not know what the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened.

Scientists computed the age of the Apollo 11 moon rocks 116 times using methods other than rubidium-strontium isochron dating.  Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall in the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years, and 106 don’t. The non-isochron dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.

When faced with this obvious discrepancy, evos sometimes backpedal by saying that although the radiometric dates may not be perfectly accurate, even 40 million years is much older than 6,000 years, so the radiometric ages still prove the Earth is old.  That reasoning fails because *the ages aren’t simply inaccurate—they are invalid.*  All of the ages were calculated using baseless assumptions about the initial concentrations of radioactive isotopes and erroneous speculation about how those concentrations changed over time.  The calculated ages have nothing to do with how old the rocks are, and have everything to do with how much of each kind of isotope was in the rocks when they were formed.

Jonathon Woolf
An Essay on Radiometric Dating


----------



## james bond

emilynghiem wrote about better health.  I posted before about the discovery about the people who were buried in Pompeii.  One can't have perfect teeth like that today unless they get braces.  Back then, they just had perfect teeth and white, too.  They probably had natural sweeteners, but no coffee.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Today, we live shorter lives due to changes in our universe post Noah's flood.

We are devolving.

As for Noah and ages, I'm going to withhold the science paper because of Mudda's comments, but here are examples of people who lived a long time and it was recorded besides the Bible.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?


----------



## hobelim

BreezeWood said:


> HOB, your scenario is a good hypothesis of what may have caused the great flood, so if the truth is discovered for a biblical event what is the deterrent from correcting the scriptures to reflect the actual event ?




I don't see any need to correct scripture. What needs to be corrected is the way people have historically categorized and interpreted scripture. Does the story of the three pigs need to be corrected because people have discovered that there is no such thing as talking pigs? If people believed that the story of the three pigs was a historical document, thats what would have to change. They would have to remove the book from the adult nonfiction section of the library and put it in the children's fiction area so people would stop trying to live their lives as adults and solve problems in society by praying to a statue of a pig, reciting one line of the book every Sunday,  endlessly wondering about what the wise pig would do.

And even if a meteor strike is eventually confirmed as the cause that in itself would not in any way invalidate the hidden instruction in the flood story or disprove that there was a man who was warned by God about the coming doom.



.


----------



## there4eyeM

That Adam and Eve were the unique human beings is illustration enough that such stories are at most metaphor. It is more than ridiculous to insist that everyone accept the same literal interpretation of something so far in the past as to be unimaginable.
In any event, do not believers say theirs is a living God? What more would be needed than looking today and seeing the reality? If one looks and does not see, that has to suffice. Arguments from others are inane.


----------



## forkup

zaangalewa said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2,As to your nt blib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but because the body count has become unsustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
Click to expand...

Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative. And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.  Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion. If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.


----------



## BreezeWood

hobelim said:


> I don't see any need to correct scripture.



_*
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".*_

did Jesus say those words ?




hobelim said:


> And even if a meteor strike is eventually confirmed as the cause that in itself would not in any way invalidate the hidden instruction in the flood story or disprove that there was a man who was warned by God about the coming doom.



there is no doubt, the parable of Noah is the religion of the bible set by the Almighty with or without whatever is a Messiah. The Triumph of Good vs Evil.

.


----------



## MaryL

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?


OK. And what kick started GOD, smartypants? There isn't an answer to ANY of this, and what difference does it make?


----------



## Boss

MaryL said:


> OK. And what kick started GOD, smartypants?



What do you mean by "kickstart" here?  The universe is a physical place. That physiology had to begin because it exists physically. God is not physical, therefore, no physiology is needed because God doesn't exist in a physical state. 

If you mean kickstarted in a spiritual sense, we don't know if things need to be kickstarted spiritually. However, the biggest problem with your line of reasoning is that it is circular. We don't need to prove where the ocean comes from to prove the ocean exists. When we play the "well what caused that" game, we end up not being able to confirm anything exists.


----------



## hobelim

BreezeWood said:


> _*“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".*_
> 
> did Jesus say those words ?




According to scripture, yes. I still see nothing that needs to be corrected except how people interpret the written words.

As the fulfillment of the promise of God sending another prophet like Moses who would speak for God specifically to *convey all of his commands, *deuteronomy 18:18, Jesus taught and demonstrated in word and deed the only right *way* to understand and conform to the laws demands, the only *truth* from God himself that results in the fulfillment of the eternal  *life* promised for obedience. No one can enter the realm of God or stand in his presence while on earth who does not righteously conform to the laws demands, hence,  no one comes to the Father except through me.



BreezeWood said:


> there is no doubt, the parable of Noah is the religion of the bible set by the Almighty with or without whatever is a Messiah. The Triumph of Good vs Evil.




I think I got the gist of what you said, but I had to use my universal intergalactic translator.

Still, no.

Falsehoods are many, truth is one.

However many religions there are or have been good will never triumph over evil without the life received from God through comprehension of the revelation of his Messiah whose primary purpose was to bear witness to the truth..To accept his testimony is to attest that God speaks the truth.


----------



## zaangalewa

BreezeWood said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any need to correct scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".*_
> 
> did Jesus say those words ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> And even if a meteor strike is eventually confirmed as the cause that in itself would not in any way invalidate the hidden instruction in the flood story or disprove that there was a man who was warned by God about the coming doom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is no doubt, the parable of Noah is the religion of the bible set by the Almighty with or without whatever is a Messiah. The Triumph of Good vs Evil.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I hope everyone understands that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life and brings people to his father - not you - hot he - not she - not they - not I - nor anyone else. What he decides we have to accept. The problem for us all is it not to be in conflict with him and the will of our all father in heaven: god. If we like to find Jesus - better to say to be found from Jesus - who brings us to the father - we have to seek for life and truth. Where life is - where truth is - is Jesus.


----------



## there4eyeM

Even 'scripture' states that Jesus only taught in parables/metaphors. It requires intelligent penetration, not superficiality, to understand. In fact, it can be stated that the most literal, facile interpretation is the wrong one.


----------



## zaangalewa

forkup said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2,As to your nt blib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but because the body count has become unsustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.
Click to expand...


"combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.



> And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.



If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.



> Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.



A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so.  Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should  trust in you.



> If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.



I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.


----------



## forkup

zaangalewa said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2,As to your nt blib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but because the body count has become unsustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so.  Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should  trust in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.
Click to expand...

Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.


----------



## ChrisL

forkup said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2,As to your nt blib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but because the body count has become unsustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so.  Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should  trust in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.
Click to expand...


So . . . who made up the Ten Commandments.  Many religious folks live by the Ten Commandments and will tell you they are the "word of God."  I guess they just pick and choose which stories are "parables" and those that are "real?"


----------



## ChrisL

ChrisL said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2,As to your nt blib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but because the body count has become unsustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so.  Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should  trust in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So . . . who made up the Ten Commandments.  Many religious folks live by the Ten Commandments and will tell you they are the "word of God."  I guess they just pick and choose which stories are "parables" and those that are "real?"
Click to expand...


Sorry, I probably should have addressed this to the other poster who claims that the stories are "parables" and that religious folks know this.


----------



## ChrisL

So, did Moses go up on the mountain and receive the Ten Commandments from God and speak with God through a "burning bush?"  Or is that just a parable?


----------



## ChrisL

Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable?  I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, where do I start.
> Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
> Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
> Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
> So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
> 2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
> this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't going to discuss creation science so much in this forum, but use facts, reasoning, and historical truths.
> 
> Since you brought up Age of the Earth (part of evolutionary thought) and your link, it is based on this -- Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson .  The problem is radiometric dating is not accurate because of its assumptions.  Unfortunately, creation science does not have a peer-reviewed method to date the age of the earth (only hypothesis).  So, today I can only offer various arguments against radiometric dating.
> 
> Jonathon Woolf makes a good presentation of evolutionists’ arguments.  He starts by saying that evolutionists haven’t done a very good job of explaining "how" radiometric dating works.  See your link and my previous link.  He continues with some definitions and explanations of terms and explains the differences between elements and isotopes (also called “nuclides”) of those elements.
> 
> The major question is "how much of the nuclide was originally present in our sample?  In some cases, we don’t know.  Such cases are useless for radiometric dating.  We _must_ know the original quantity of the parent nuclide in order to date our sample radiometrically.  Fortunately, there are cases where we can do that.  Creation scientists content there are no cases where we can do it.
> 
> Woof states, "there’s a basic law of chemistry that says "Chemical processes like those that form minerals cannot distinguish between different nuclides of the same element." They simply can’t do it. If an element has more than one nuclide present, and a mineral forms in a magma melt that includes that element, the element’s different nuclides will appear in the mineral in precisely the same ratio that they occurred in the environment where and when the mineral was formed. This is the second axiom of radiometric dating.
> 
> There are evolutionists (evos) who claim water on Earth is older than the Sun:
> "H2D+ becomes enriched relative to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because the deuterated isotopologue is energetically favored at low temperatures. There is an energy barrier Δ_E_1 to return to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , i.e.,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , where Δ_E_1 ≈ 124 K, although the precise value depends on the nuclear spin of the reactants and products. The relatively modest value of Δ_E_1 restricts deuterium enrichments in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to the coldest gas,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Thus, deuterium-enriched water formation requires the right mix of environmental conditions: cold gas, gas-phase oxygen, and ionization."
> 
> In layman's terms, they are acknowledging that the number of protons, regardless of the number of neutrons, determines how atoms react chemically to form molecules -- but the number of neutrons does make a very tiny difference in the amount of heat liberated by the reaction.  So, for very light elements at temperatures close to absolute zero, chemical processes do actually differentiate very slightly between isotopes because of the barely measurable difference in heat involved in the reaction.
> 
> Woolf also recognizes this fact, "Note: It’s true that some natural processes favor some isotopes over others. Water molecules containing oxygen-16 are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen-18. However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon. The atoms used in radiometric dating techniques are mainly heavy atoms, so we can still use the axiom that mineral-forming processes can’t distinguish between different nuclides."
> 
> So, in general, it is the number of protons that determines how chemical bonds will be formed. The number of neutrons is irrelevant.
> 
> Furthermore, the ratio of isotopes in molten rocks does not change immediately when the rock hardens.  The age of the rock formation is supposedly determined by how much the ratio of isotopes changes AFTER the rock hardens (which presumes that enough time has elapsed for radioactive decay to change that ratio).  Yet, we still do not know what the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened.
> 
> Scientists computed the age of the Apollo 11 moon rocks 116 times using methods other than rubidium-strontium isochron dating.  Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall in the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years, and 106 don’t. The non-isochron dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.
> 
> When faced with this obvious discrepancy, evos sometimes backpedal by saying that although the radiometric dates may not be perfectly accurate, even 40 million years is much older than 6,000 years, so the radiometric ages still prove the Earth is old.  That reasoning fails because *the ages aren’t simply inaccurate—they are invalid.*  All of the ages were calculated using baseless assumptions about the initial concentrations of radioactive isotopes and erroneous speculation about how those concentrations changed over time.  The calculated ages have nothing to do with how old the rocks are, and have everything to do with how much of each kind of isotope was in the rocks when they were formed.
> 
> Jonathon Woolf
> An Essay on Radiometric Dating
Click to expand...

I'll be honest again this looks like you are more knowledgable. Then again,
Do we have observational evidence?



The answer is yes. On several occasions, astronomers have been able to analyze the radiation produced by supernovas. In a supernova, the vast amount of energy released creates every known nuclide via atomic fusion and fission. Some of these nuclides are radioactive. We can detect the presence of the various nuclides by spectrographic analysis of the supernova’s radiation. We can also detect the characteristic radiation signatures of radioactive decay in those nuclides. We can use that information to calculate the half-lives of those nuclides. In every case where this has been done, the measured radiation intensity and the calculated half-life of the nuclide from the supernova matches extremely well with measurements of that nuclide made here on Earth.

that's from your link. plus I got my link from the USGS not exactly a disreputable source don't you agree. But I see you ONLY went after radiometric data. You didn't answer the geology part. So in geology Rocks tell tales, layers of rocks contain different fossils, and those layers and fossils are consistent troughout the world. You won't find a Permian age fossil in a Creatacous fossil layer.... ever. You won't find A Cretatacous age fossil in a Paleogene layer, etc. In other words it's very easy to see the history of life in the fossil record. It also very clearly shows where Humanoids AKA humans came into the picture. Guess when .... in the Pliocene after a bunch of other ages. So unless you're suggesting that rocks form in a matter of days a 7 day creation becomes problematic.Also some event's leave distinc markers. Like a massive decrease in fossils between the Permian and Triassic period. There's a similar marker between the cretacous and the Paleogene known as the K-T bounderary. Before, dinosaurs where everywhere after it they where gone. The interesting thing about that bounderary is that it contains relatively high concentrations of Iridium. A very rare element on earth's crust. It is however abundant in astroids. It is like all layers global. Suggesting very strongly an impact event. My point is there's an overwhelming case to be made for an earth with alot of history before humans.Just based on the fossil record available. Here's another one. In a young earth the sky would be a very empty place. Light needs time to reach earth 6000 years Is actually local on a cosmic scale. Stars that are farther then 6000 lightyears would be invisible on earth because the light wouldn't have reached us. All these facts are mutually supportive and don't rely on the fact that somehow ppl could reach 950 years of age to make it feasable, let alone proven.


----------



## there4eyeM

Mark 21:21


----------



## BreezeWood

hobelim said:


> However many religions there are or have been good will never triumph over evil without the life received from God through comprehension of the revelation of his Messiah whose primary purpose was to bear witness to the truth..To accept his testimony is to attest that God speaks the truth.


.
for the Spoken religion there is no possible way to respond to your post - everything in your book is hearsay, nothing authenticated by its principle the ten commandments destroyed and the heretic worshiped by biblicists.


_*good will never triumph over evil ...*_

good luck then at least you will not be drowned - the caveat not withstanding, the messiah.

.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"




Rising from the dead is a metaphor.

First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.

Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ wikipedia.  It's liberal/atheist-pedia.  Better to read the source underneath and explain.  Then I'll look at it.  Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible.  Maybe you do explain underneath.
> 
> At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).  Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant.  When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits.  What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries.  Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.  Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now.  Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects.  Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans.  All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.
> 
> It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit.  It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.
> 
> The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk.  It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.
> 
> As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail.  How did the first life begin?  We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein.  That only happens within a cell.  I can demonstrate only amino acids form.
> 
> 
> Even Christians have the questions you have.  I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
> This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
> Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
> Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
> Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest  known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not use the word "proof."  I thought we agreed that there won't be.  Our worldviews are divergent.  My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence.  I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science.  Fair?
> 
> The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals.  The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know).  As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk.  That was Satan doing the talking.
> 
> Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein.  That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.
> 
> As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible.  And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet.  The universe was different at the time.  What changed was after Noah's flood.  You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.
> 
> NOTE:  I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.
> 
> I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist.  To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
> 2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
> this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't going to discuss creation science so much in this forum, but use facts, reasoning, and historical truths.
> 
> Since you brought up Age of the Earth (part of evolutionary thought) and your link, it is based on this -- Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson .  The problem is radiometric dating is not accurate because of its assumptions.  Unfortunately, creation science does not have a peer-reviewed method to date the age of the earth (only hypothesis).  So, today I can only offer various arguments against radiometric dating.
> 
> Jonathon Woolf makes a good presentation of evolutionists’ arguments.  He starts by saying that evolutionists haven’t done a very good job of explaining "how" radiometric dating works.  See your link and my previous link.  He continues with some definitions and explanations of terms and explains the differences between elements and isotopes (also called “nuclides”) of those elements.
> 
> The major question is "how much of the nuclide was originally present in our sample?  In some cases, we don’t know.  Such cases are useless for radiometric dating.  We _must_ know the original quantity of the parent nuclide in order to date our sample radiometrically.  Fortunately, there are cases where we can do that.  Creation scientists content there are no cases where we can do it.
> 
> Woof states, "there’s a basic law of chemistry that says "Chemical processes like those that form minerals cannot distinguish between different nuclides of the same element." They simply can’t do it. If an element has more than one nuclide present, and a mineral forms in a magma melt that includes that element, the element’s different nuclides will appear in the mineral in precisely the same ratio that they occurred in the environment where and when the mineral was formed. This is the second axiom of radiometric dating.
> 
> There are evolutionists (evos) who claim water on Earth is older than the Sun:
> "H2D+ becomes enriched relative to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because the deuterated isotopologue is energetically favored at low temperatures. There is an energy barrier Δ_E_1 to return to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , i.e.,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , where Δ_E_1 ≈ 124 K, although the precise value depends on the nuclear spin of the reactants and products. The relatively modest value of Δ_E_1 restricts deuterium enrichments in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to the coldest gas,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Thus, deuterium-enriched water formation requires the right mix of environmental conditions: cold gas, gas-phase oxygen, and ionization."
> 
> In layman's terms, they are acknowledging that the number of protons, regardless of the number of neutrons, determines how atoms react chemically to form molecules -- but the number of neutrons does make a very tiny difference in the amount of heat liberated by the reaction.  So, for very light elements at temperatures close to absolute zero, chemical processes do actually differentiate very slightly between isotopes because of the barely measurable difference in heat involved in the reaction.
> 
> Woolf also recognizes this fact, "Note: It’s true that some natural processes favor some isotopes over others. Water molecules containing oxygen-16 are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen-18. However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon. The atoms used in radiometric dating techniques are mainly heavy atoms, so we can still use the axiom that mineral-forming processes can’t distinguish between different nuclides."
> 
> So, in general, it is the number of protons that determines how chemical bonds will be formed. The number of neutrons is irrelevant.
> 
> Furthermore, the ratio of isotopes in molten rocks does not change immediately when the rock hardens.  The age of the rock formation is supposedly determined by how much the ratio of isotopes changes AFTER the rock hardens (which presumes that enough time has elapsed for radioactive decay to change that ratio).  Yet, we still do not know what the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened.
> 
> Scientists computed the age of the Apollo 11 moon rocks 116 times using methods other than rubidium-strontium isochron dating.  Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall in the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years, and 106 don’t. The non-isochron dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.
> 
> When faced with this obvious discrepancy, evos sometimes backpedal by saying that although the radiometric dates may not be perfectly accurate, even 40 million years is much older than 6,000 years, so the radiometric ages still prove the Earth is old.  That reasoning fails because *the ages aren’t simply inaccurate—they are invalid.*  All of the ages were calculated using baseless assumptions about the initial concentrations of radioactive isotopes and erroneous speculation about how those concentrations changed over time.  The calculated ages have nothing to do with how old the rocks are, and have everything to do with how much of each kind of isotope was in the rocks when they were formed.
> 
> Jonathon Woolf
> An Essay on Radiometric Dating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll be honest again this looks like you are more knowledgable. Then again,
> Do we have observational evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is yes. On several occasions, astronomers have been able to analyze the radiation produced by supernovas. In a supernova, the vast amount of energy released creates every known nuclide via atomic fusion and fission. Some of these nuclides are radioactive. We can detect the presence of the various nuclides by spectrographic analysis of the supernova’s radiation. We can also detect the characteristic radiation signatures of radioactive decay in those nuclides. We can use that information to calculate the half-lives of those nuclides. In every case where this has been done, the measured radiation intensity and the calculated half-life of the nuclide from the supernova matches extremely well with measurements of that nuclide made here on Earth.
> 
> that's from your link. plus I got my link from the USGS not exactly a disreputable source don't you agree. But I see you ONLY went after radiometric data. You didn't answer the geology part. So in geology Rocks tell tales, layers of rocks contain different fossils, and those layers and fossils are consistent troughout the world. You won't find a Permian age fossil in a Creatacous fossil layer.... ever. You won't find A Cretatacous age fossil in a Paleogene layer, etc. In other words it's very easy to see the history of life in the fossil record. It also very clearly shows where Humanoids AKA humans came into the picture. Guess when .... in the Pliocene after a bunch of other ages. So unless you're suggesting that rocks form in a matter of days a 7 day creation becomes problematic.Also some event's leave distinc markers. Like a massive decrease in fossils between the Permian and Triassic period. There's a similar marker between the cretacous and the Paleogene known as the K-T bounderary. Before, dinosaurs where everywhere after it they where gone. The interesting thing about that bounderary is that it contains relatively high concentrations of Iridium. A very rare element on earth's crust. It is however abundant in astroids. It is like all layers global. Suggesting very strongly an impact event. My point is there's an overwhelming case to be made for an earth with alot of history before humans.Just based on the fossil record available. Here's another one. In a young earth the sky would be a very empty place. Light needs time to reach earth 6000 years Is actually local on a cosmic scale. Stars that are farther then 6000 lightyears would be invisible on earth because the light wouldn't have reached us. All these facts are mutually supportive and don't rely on the fact that somehow ppl could reach 950 years of age to make it feasable, let alone proven.
Click to expand...



No question about the half-life or exponential decay of the nuclide.  That can be done experimentally and we do not need radioactive material (thank God) to show it.  It can be done with dice.






201 dice were rolled and all the "ones" were removed and counted at each throw. The process was simulated five times for comparison with the actual experiment.

Again, what we do not know is how much it started with.  To the layman, here is a pretty good video to explain the process.  Below that is the scientific argument against it.  All we can tell from radiometric dating is how long the material being measured is decaying, not how old it is.

Bill Nye Explains Half Life


As for your USGS and layers, the basic assumption or worldview is not correct.  USGS base their findings on unifamitarianism.  Creation scientists base their findings on catastrophism.  As throughout history, we find that evos are usurping catastrophism for their own purposes.

Anomalies to USGS






"To the tourist industry, it’s a real money spinner. To its European discoverers in the 1870s, it was a rock that appeared more wonderful every time it was viewed. To the Australian Aborigines, it was a place of shelter and special ceremonies. In some of their legends it came into being as a result of 40 days and 40 nights of rain. To the geologists, however, it has been a perplexing puzzle, so they have largely ignored it.

But despite the silence of the geologists, the publicity from the tourist industry has ensured that Ayers Rock has become one of Australia’s most famous landmarks. Situated in Australia’s arid red heart, the Rock is almost 460 km (285 miles) due south-west of the township of Alice Springs. Visited by thousands of tourists each year, it rises abruptly on all sides from the surrounding flat desert plains to a height of about 350 m (1,140 ft). This single massive Rock measures 9 km (5.6 miles) around its base, and stands in an awesome and solitary grandeur that can be only fully appreciated by those who visit its silent and desolate abode in Central Australia."

Ayers Rock - creation.com

I'll address more your geology part in my next post.


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
Click to expand...


That's not what it says in the Bible.  It specifically states that Jesus actually awoke from the dead. There were allegedly women there who witnessed it and saw his tomb was empty!


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
Click to expand...


Have you read the Bible?  I've read it, and while I don't remember specific "quotes and passages," I remember the gist of it and the specific fantastical stories.


----------



## ChrisL

hobelim said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
Click to expand...


And where did the Ten Commandments come from?


----------



## ChrisL

And if all of these stories are supposed to be "parables," then what did Jesus die on the cross for?  What is original sin if the Adam and Eve story is only a "parable?"  Sorry but it just doesn't add up when you take off the blinders and use logic and intellect.


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says in the Bible.  It specifically states that Jesus actually awoke from the dead. There were allegedly women there who witnessed it and saw his tomb was empty!
Click to expand...

This quote is from Anonymous (I do not know which one since there are quite a few who preferred to remain nameless)
"Sacred texts are full of analogies and metaphors all mixed up with plain facts, so it's difficult to tell what is to be interpreted literally and what is to be deciphered. And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally." 
Ponder that statement if you wish.


----------



## ChrisL

Cherry picked, when it works.  Anyone can plainly see that these stories and claims make no logical sense.


----------



## ChrisL

This stuff didn't make sense when I was a child and it STILL makes no sense.  So what did Jesus die on the cross for?  Or is that just a story too?  He didn't really die on the cross for some imagined "slight" to some God?


----------



## ChrisL

That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.


Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:


defcon4 said:


> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is a weak explanation, sorry.


----------



## Militants

Never knowing that God exist or the Swede God even I have voices in my life and then Swede God do nothing before I started to hate Swede God and Jumala and Jumalauta and Christ because I've been irritation over eating silence off course nobody like to be irritation over silence when man eat food.


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.


----------



## defcon4

Militants said:


> Never knowing that God exist or the Swede God even I have voices in my life and then Swede God do nothing before I started to hate Swede God and Jumala and Jumalauta and Christ because I've been irritation over eating silence off course nobody like to be irritation over silence when man eat food.


That was a good one, thank you….


----------



## ChrisL

The only "facts" interspersed throughout the Bible may be names and places. The stories are all a bunch of bullshit.  None of them are true!!!


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> The only "facts" interspersed throughout the Bible may be names and places. *The stories are all a bunch of bullshit.*  None of them are true!!!


Did you just say "bullshit?" 
Come on decipher the metaphors and read literal things literally then you have your answers.


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "facts" interspersed throughout the Bible may be names and places. *The stories are all a bunch of bullshit.*  None of them are true!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just say "bullshit?"
> Come on decipher the metaphors and read literal things literally then you have your answers.
Click to expand...


Oh okay, so which ones are "metaphors" and which ones are truths?


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> Oh okay, so which ones are "metaphors" and which ones are truths?


Meditate over them and they shall be revealed to you.


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "facts" interspersed throughout the Bible may be names and places. *The stories are all a bunch of bullshit.*  None of them are true!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just say "bullshit?"
> Come on decipher the metaphors and read literal things literally then you have your answers.
Click to expand...


Face it.  You believe in ridiculous stories written in a book thousands of years ago by ignorant men who did not understand the way the world really works.  It's a scam.  The biggest and most successful scam ever to be pulled in history.  You are just afraid to examine it and admit to that, understandably so.


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh okay, so which ones are "metaphors" and which ones are truths?
> 
> 
> 
> Meditate over them and they shall be revealed to you.
Click to expand...


IOW, you don't know.  Typical "religious whack" response when confronted with logic.


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> Face it. You believe in ridiculous stories written in a book thousands of years ago by ignorant men who did not understand the way the world really works. It's a scam. The biggest and most successful scam ever to be pulled in history. You are just afraid to examine it and admit to that, understandably so.


I did not affirm that I believe in anything but it doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> IOW, you don't know. Typical "religious whack" response when confronted with logic.


I cannot tell you, the spirit has to tell you. It is a discovery for all on their own.


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you don't know. Typical "religious whack" response when confronted with logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot tell you, the spirit has to tell you. It is a discovery for all on their own.
Click to expand...


It's fiction.


----------



## ChrisL

Anyone who isn't brainwashed can see that!  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you don't know. Typical "religious whack" response when confronted with logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot tell you, the spirit has to tell you. It is a discovery for all on their own.
Click to expand...


There is no such things as "spirits" except for in your imagination.


----------



## hobelim

ChrisL said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says in the Bible.  It specifically states that Jesus actually awoke from the dead. There were allegedly women there who witnessed it and saw his tomb was empty!
Click to expand...



Right, and there was another account where some angelic being floated down from the sky and rolled away his stone. What you remember reading were eyewitness accounts of what was seen and heard in dreams.

People do not pop in and out of reality or float up into the sky anywhere except for in dreams.

Jesus was raised as an observant Jew. This same Jesus compared pharisaic beliefs and practices to unmarked graves and whitewashed tombs. Do the math.

He really did awaken from the dead after being baptized by John as a token of repentance for the forgiveness of sin. Thats when,  " The heavens opened up to him". 

Whats so hard to believe? You used to be protestant, right? Now you don't believe in any of it, right?

Didn't you wake up from the dead at some point or are you just sleeptalking?


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you don't know. Typical "religious whack" response when confronted with logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot tell you, the spirit has to tell you. It is a discovery for all on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such things as "spirits" except for in your imagination.
Click to expand...

There are spirits. You have your own spirit and it dwells in your soul and your soul dwells in your body.


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you don't know. Typical "religious whack" response when confronted with logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot tell you, the spirit has to tell you. It is a discovery for all on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such things as "spirits" except for in your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are spirits. You have your own spirit and it dwells in your soul and your soul dwells in your body.
Click to expand...


Um, no.  I don't believe in spirits or gods.


----------



## ChrisL

There are no gods, there are no devils, there is no "heaven."  When you die you become a part of the earth.  It's all very hard to accept, but that is what I believe.


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> Um, no. I don't believe in spirits or gods.


So you do not believe you have your spirit?
Do you believe you have as soul?
I assume you believe you have a body.


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no. I don't believe in spirits or gods.
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not believe you have your spirit?
> Do you believe you have as soul?
> I assume you believe you have a body.
Click to expand...


I have a body and a brain.  There is no such thing as a "spirit" as defined by religion.  Your "spirit" comes from your personality and your brain, your feelings.  Once you die, that is gone forever.


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no. I don't believe in spirits or gods.
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not believe you have your spirit?
> Do you believe you have as soul?
> I assume you believe you have a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a body and a brain.  There is no such thing as a "spirit" as defined by religion.  Your "spirit" comes from your personality and your brain, your feelings.  Once you die, that is gone forever.
Click to expand...

Do you have a soul?


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no. I don't believe in spirits or gods.
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not believe you have your spirit?
> Do you believe you have as soul?
> I assume you believe you have a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a body and a brain.  There is no such thing as a "spirit" as defined by religion.  Your "spirit" comes from your personality and your brain, your feelings.  Once you die, that is gone forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a soul?
Click to expand...


Define "soul."


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> Define "soul."


Do you have one or not?


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
Click to expand...


Define what you mean by a "soul."


----------



## The Irish Ram

If God didn't exist, we wouldn't know what is happening and about to happen in our future.  I can't tell you who will win next year's Super Bowl, but God told us 2,000 years ago what we see happening on the nightly news.  

Someone or thing had to have put into motion the Laws of Physics that our scientists keep discovering in the universe and beyond.  Physics can't be explained away through evolution.  The speed of light didn't start out at a trot first.  DNA was complex from the beginning.  For the eye to work properly it was extremely complex for the start. 


> *Psalm 139:14 *
> I praise you because I am fearfully and _wonderfully made_


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define what you mean by a "soul."
Click to expand...

My definition may not be what you understand as soul. Do you have soul?


----------



## The Irish Ram

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
Click to expand...


Every human ever born has a soul.  And a human spirit.  Spirits are eternal.  We never cease to exist.  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God.  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.  He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.


----------



## zaangalewa

forkup said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2,As to your nt blib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but because the body count has become unsustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so. Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should trust in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.
Click to expand...


About 6000 years was the first approximation - meanwhile we speak about 13.82 billion years in case of the universe and about four and a half billion years in case of the solar system and the planet Earth. The man who had the first time in history of mankind the idea to ask the quantity of years since the world was created was a genius. So you can see: You are the ignorant who attacks what he doesn't understand far from reasons of science. I would be really happy if atheists would understand that atheism is also only a belief. The belief not to believe is indeed a little more paradox than to believe in god.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2,As to your nt blib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but because the body count has become unsustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so.  Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should  trust in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So . . . who made up the Ten Commandments.  Many religious folks live by the Ten Commandments and will tell you they are the "word of God."  I guess they just pick and choose which stories are "parables" and those that are "real?"
Click to expand...


I am religious like many folks all around me too and I think something about the 10 commandements. I don't tell you now what I think about the 10 commandements but let me say: If everyone in the world would understand the word of god "_Don't kill!_" I guess we could live without [the idea of] the  10 commandements.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> So, did Moses go up on the mountain and receive the Ten Commandments from God and speak with God through a "burning bush?"  Or is that just a parable?



No - that happened. And it happened much more than only this.


----------



## HUGGY

The Irish Ram said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
Click to expand...


You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.  

It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.

 Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.  

You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says in the Bible.  It specifically states that Jesus actually awoke from the dead. There were allegedly women there who witnessed it and saw his tomb was empty!
Click to expand...


That's what the women reported. Should we not trust in women?


----------



## james bond

ChrisL said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
Click to expand...


What is your answer?

Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.


----------



## james bond

HUGGY said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  *A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
Click to expand...


You must be talking about Evolution.


----------



## The Irish Ram

HUGGY said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
Click to expand...


Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist.
I have no problem with reality.  If we cease to exist, then no harm no foul, I cease to exist.  If you were right, I'm not going to die and then say, "Shit I guess I was wrong.."    On the other hand, if you die and find out that I am right then you will have an eternity to say, "Shit, I was wrong, and now it's too late to choose my eternal destination."

Goat herders can't tell me what is going to happen tomorrow let alone 2,000 years from now.  You have to be multi-dimensional to do that.  Someone, somewhere is able to function outside of time to do that, and has.  The Bible is 1/4 prophecy.  And accurate. < God's standard.

Were you informed on the subject you would know that the most prestigious and respected man of that time, (not a goat herder) and present for the trials, recorded the events surrounding the death and return of Jesus  in real time.  In duplicate.  One copy for the Roman court, one copy for the Temple Priests. None of the record (that exists to this day, in the original)  was disputed by either.
Then there was Peter who wrote, "I am sitting here with some of those 500 who saw Christ return, so you'll know that I am not given to fantasy as I record this."

We are made in the image of our Father.  We are spirit, we are eternal.


----------



## james bond

Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.

Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).

Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.

False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.

Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*

Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.

Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.

Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?

To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?

Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.

On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.

Geographic Names
There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example, 

The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.

The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.

The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.

Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.

More, as I get time.


----------



## james bond

I, James Bond, give you facts, reasoning, and historical truths while the non-believers give us opinions.  Not much to see here.  Move along folks.


----------



## zaangalewa

The Irish Ram said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist. ...
Click to expand...


I'm not sure about this. There's maybe indeed a kind of prove for the existance of a soul.  For sure something existed - let me say a thousand or a million or a billion years ago - what was necesarry for your existance now. If someone could travel back in time he could easily erase your existance by destroying in former times this what I would call "the way of your soul". (But we don't know in this case anything about the new way a soul would go). I'm not sure wether this experiment by thoughts shows that a soul has necessarily to exist - although we are not able now and here to notice the ways of the souls of the futures.


----------



## james bond

The Irish Ram said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist.
> I have no problem with reality.  If we cease to exist, then no harm no foul, I cease to exist.  If you were right, I'm not going to die and then say, "Shit I guess I was wrong.."    On the other hand, if you die and find out that I am right then you will have an eternity to say, "Shit, I was wrong, and now it's too late to choose my eternal destination."
> 
> Goat herders can't tell me what is going to happen tomorrow let alone 2,000 years from now.  You have to be multi-dimensional to do that.  Someone, somewhere is able to function outside of time to do that, and has.  The Bible is 1/4 prophecy.  And accurate. < God's standard.
> 
> Were you informed on the subject you would know that the most prestigious and respected man of that time, (not a goat herder) and present for the trials, recorded the events surrounding the death and return of Jesus  in real time.  In duplicate.  One copy for the Roman court, one copy for the Temple Priests. None of the record (that exists to this day, in the original)  was disputed by either.
> Then there was Peter who wrote, "I am sitting here with some of those 500 who saw Christ return, so you'll know that I am not given to fantasy as I record this."
> 
> We are made in the image of our Father.  We are spirit, we are eternal.
Click to expand...


Part of what you talk about is Pascal's Wager.  The other part -- what happens just after death -- is something I looked into.  God told us that He would not reveal the Beginning nor the End of Life to us, so I found this to be true.  Even the study of the afterlife ends before we find out what happens.  To do this, one would have to go beyond and there is no coming back to tell us.  However, the people who had near-death experiences (NDE) come back and tell us what happened.  I think some will have light to guide them while some will have darkness and only what they believed in their life to guide them.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Adaptation is what Darwin noted in birds beaks and mistook it for a new species.  It was the same bird, whose beak had adapted to take advantage of the foliage on a different island.  Living things adapt to their surroundings.  They do not morph into different species.  Had Darwin known about DNA, we would never had heard of Darwin.  To this day, Monkey DNA remains monkey DNA.  Because it is similar to ours means absolutely nothing. A cloud, a watermelon and a jelly fish have similar properties.  That doesn't mean that a watermelon used to be a jellyfish.  Had Darwin been correct we would literally be walking on the millions of years worth of missing link bones per species, necessary for one species to become something other than what it started out being.  For a species to morph into something different, a mistake has to be produced in the DNA.   The exact same mistake would have to reoccur, exactly, for millions of generations to create a different species. Exact same mistake is an oxymoron.    DNA is self correcting.


----------



## The Irish Ram

zaangalewa said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about this. There's maybe indeed a kind of prove for the existance of a soul.  For sure something existed - let me say a thousand or a million or a billion years ago - what was necesarry for your existance now. If someone could travel back in time he could easily erase your existance by destroying in former times this what I would call "the way of your soul". (But we don't know in this case anything about the new way a soul would go). I'm not sure wether this experiment by thoughts shows that a soul has necessarily to exist - although we are not able now and here to notice the ways of the souls of the futures.
Click to expand...


That Christ died, was no out of the ordinary event.  That he returned from the dead was an extraordinary event, and indicates that there is indeed life after death.  If you read the accounts of the 2 formerly dead priests that returned with Christ, and gave testimony to the events,at the Temple,  you'll see that just like the Bible describes, those men were alive and well, absent from there terrestrial shells, and were waiting in Abraham's bosom for the appearance of Christ.  Those souls could not enter heaven until pure blood was shed for their sins. Aprox. 10,000 souls, reunited with their (glorified at that point) bodies, returned with Christ, and ascended with him 40 days later.


----------



## ChrisL

james bond said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
Click to expand...


Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says in the Bible.  It specifically states that Jesus actually awoke from the dead. There were allegedly women there who witnessed it and saw his tomb was empty!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the women reported. Should we not trust in women?
Click to expand...


This doesn't even make sense, and shows your ignorance, like putting it up on a billboard with flashing lights!


----------



## The Irish Ram

james bond said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist.
> I have no problem with reality.  If we cease to exist, then no harm no foul, I cease to exist.  If you were right, I'm not going to die and then say, "Shit I guess I was wrong.."    On the other hand, if you die and find out that I am right then you will have an eternity to say, "Shit, I was wrong, and now it's too late to choose my eternal destination."
> 
> Goat herders can't tell me what is going to happen tomorrow let alone 2,000 years from now.  You have to be multi-dimensional to do that.  Someone, somewhere is able to function outside of time to do that, and has.  The Bible is 1/4 prophecy.  And accurate. < God's standard.
> 
> Were you informed on the subject you would know that the most prestigious and respected man of that time, (not a goat herder) and present for the trials, recorded the events surrounding the death and return of Jesus  in real time.  In duplicate.  One copy for the Roman court, one copy for the Temple Priests. None of the record (that exists to this day, in the original)  was disputed by either.
> Then there was Peter who wrote, "I am sitting here with some of those 500 who saw Christ return, so you'll know that I am not given to fantasy as I record this."
> 
> We are made in the image of our Father.  We are spirit, we are eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part of what you talk about is Pascal's Wager.  The other part -- what happens just after death -- is something I looked into.  God told us that He would not reveal the Beginning nor the End of Life to us, so I found this to be true.  Even the study of the afterlife ends before we find out what happens.  To do this, one would have to go beyond and there is no coming back to tell us.  However, the people who had near-death experiences (NDE) come back and tell us what happened.  I think some will have light to guide them while some will have darkness and only what they believed in their life to guide them.
Click to expand...


I had a near death experience as a kid, and am so thankful for that experience.  My heart stopped in the ambulance and I yet I was able to recount the whole trip to the hosp. I know exactly what life without my shell is like.  I don't have to rely on faith, I experienced it.  Religion played no part in it.  There is a non religious man here whose body was badly injured, and he said he can't explain it, but in an instant he was at his mother's home.  This is merely phase 1.


----------



## The Irish Ram

ChrisL said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
Click to expand...


We are never banished from God.  When Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, God went with them.  Our imperfections were dealt with at the cross.  Those who accept the gift of propitiation, are considered the perfection of Christ, by God.  That was the exchange that took place.  Christ looked like us on that cross.   When God looks at a believer, He see His Son's shining glory.


----------



## ChrisL

The Irish Ram said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are never banished from God.  When Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, God went with them.  Our imperfections were dealt with at the cross.  Those who accept the gift of propitiation, are considered the perfection of Christ, by God.  That was the exchange that took place.  Christ looked like us on that cross.   When God looks at a believer, He see His Son's shining glory.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that.  None of this stuff makes any sense when you look at it from a "logic" perspective rather than a "superstitious" perspective.


----------



## ChrisL

The Irish Ram said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are never banished from God.  When Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, God went with them.  Our imperfections were dealt with at the cross.  Those who accept the gift of propitiation, are considered the perfection of Christ, by God.  That was the exchange that took place.  Christ looked like us on that cross.   When God looks at a believer, He see His Son's shining glory.
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ (if he really even existed) was just a man.  A smart and intelligent man who didn't like violence, but a MAN nonetheless.  The myth of god is no different than the myths of other gods that other cultures believed in.


----------



## ChrisL

The Irish Ram said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist.
> I have no problem with reality.  If we cease to exist, then no harm no foul, I cease to exist.  If you were right, I'm not going to die and then say, "Shit I guess I was wrong.."    On the other hand, if you die and find out that I am right then you will have an eternity to say, "Shit, I was wrong, and now it's too late to choose my eternal destination."
> 
> Goat herders can't tell me what is going to happen tomorrow let alone 2,000 years from now.  You have to be multi-dimensional to do that.  Someone, somewhere is able to function outside of time to do that, and has.  The Bible is 1/4 prophecy.  And accurate. < God's standard.
> 
> Were you informed on the subject you would know that the most prestigious and respected man of that time, (not a goat herder) and present for the trials, recorded the events surrounding the death and return of Jesus  in real time.  In duplicate.  One copy for the Roman court, one copy for the Temple Priests. None of the record (that exists to this day, in the original)  was disputed by either.
> Then there was Peter who wrote, "I am sitting here with some of those 500 who saw Christ return, so you'll know that I am not given to fantasy as I record this."
> 
> We are made in the image of our Father.  We are spirit, we are eternal.
Click to expand...


Right, you've been "scared" into believing and are too afraid to question the things that obviously don't make any sense.  People do not arise from the dead.  That doesn't happen.  That has been proven by science.  Once you are dead, your organs start decaying almost immediately.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2,As to your nt blib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but because the body count has become unsustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so. Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should trust in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 6000 years was the first approximation - meanwhile we speak about 13.82 billion years in case of the universe and about four and a half billion years in case of the solar system and the planet Earth. The man who had the first time in history of mankind the idea to ask the quantity of years since the world was created was a genius. So you can see: You are the ignorant who attacks what he doesn't understand far from reasons of science. I would be really happy if atheists would understand that atheism is also only a belief. The belief not to believe is indeed a little more paradox than to believe in god.
Click to expand...


Funny that you bring that up, considering that Christians have tortured and murdered people throughout history for "heresy" as well as for being "witches" and other such things.


----------



## ChrisL

defcon4 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "soul."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define what you mean by a "soul."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My definition may not be what you understand as soul. Do you have soul?
Click to expand...


I notice you cannot give me a definition and I know why.  Do you think I'm stupid or something?    Lol.


----------



## The Irish Ram

> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.



WHAT???  Rising from the dead, and bringing the formally dead with Him, was no metaphor.  He died only once.  Witnessed.  He rose.  Again witnessed.  Nothing dreamlike about it.  500 people saw the now alive Jesus cooking fish!  No metaphor.  Fish stood for fish.  No hidden, ethereal meaning...   He appeared to many besides his disciples.  He hung around for over a month.  He didn't die and rise and die and rise and die and rise.  What he did he did ONCE and FOR ALL.  Nothing suggests that you need to convert what he did into a metaphor. Lazarus was no metaphor.  Even the Pharisees knew Jesus could work miracles and raise the dead.  They never denied it.


----------



## The Irish Ram

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> What?
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> ?
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so. Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should trust in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 6000 years was the first approximation - meanwhile we speak about 13.82 billion years in case of the universe and about four and a half billion years in case of the solar system and the planet Earth. The man who had the first time in history of mankind the idea to ask the quantity of years since the world was created was a genius. So you can see: You are the ignorant who attacks what he doesn't understand far from reasons of science. I would be really happy if atheists would understand that atheism is also only a belief. The belief not to believe is indeed a little more paradox than to believe in god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that you bring that up, considering that Christians have tortured and murdered people throughout history for "heresy" as well as for being "witches" and other such things.
Click to expand...


----------



## hobelim

The Irish Ram said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are never banished from God.  When Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, God went with them.  Our imperfections were dealt with at the cross.  Those who accept the gift of propitiation, are considered the perfection of Christ, by God.  That was the exchange that took place.  Christ looked like us on that cross.   When God looks at a believer, He see His Son's shining glory.
Click to expand...



Ugh... and some people do not believe that people die in the very day they get down on their knees and worship an edible mangod after being deceived by a talking serpent into believing the nonsense that they would live forever in paradise if they did...


----------



## The Irish Ram

Chris, you seem to want to cull Christians out for their behavior without regard to the machinations of mankind, period.  Atheists, Muslims, and every other brand of man can be weighed in the balance and found wanting.  Christ didn't come to save Christians.  There were no Christians when Jesus was born.  He came to remove the sins of us all.  We all fall short.  Christians aren't perfect by any means.   The only difference is we accept the forgiveness offered to us by a loving Father.  It is a gift.


----------



## hobelim

The Irish Ram said:


> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT???  Rising from the dead, and bringing the formally dead with Him, was no metaphor.  He died only once.  Witnessed.  He rose.  Again witnessed.  Nothing dreamlike about it.  500 people saw the now alive Jesus cooking fish!  No metaphor.  Fish stood for fish.  No hidden, ethereal meaning...   He appeared to many besides his disciples.  He hung around for over a month.  He didn't die and rise and die and rise and die and rise.  What he did he did ONCE and FOR ALL.  Nothing suggests that you need to convert what he did into a metaphor. Lazarus was no metaphor.  Even the Pharisees knew Jesus could work miracles and raise the dead.  They never denied it.
Click to expand...



The Pharisees knew that Jesus could raise the dead because their vast collection of victims, human possessions,  were crawling out of their unmarked graves and busting out of their whitewashed tombs in droves, spontaneously after being touched by his teaching.


----------



## The Irish Ram

It is for those that have an ear to hear, hob.
Christ spoke in parables to protect those who didn't  "get it",   and to discern those who did.  Disbelief has no bearing on the events that transpired.  God saved his children whether you believe it or not.  You are the only one impacted by your disbelief.  My destination is secure regardless of your convictions.  It is a personal walk.  Free to everyone. Accepted by a few.

There were lifeboats available on the Titanic that were only half full because not everybody believed they were sinking...


----------



## hobelim

The Irish Ram said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are never banished from God.  When Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, God went with them.  Our imperfections were dealt with at the cross.  Those who accept the gift of propitiation, are considered the perfection of Christ, by God.  That was the exchange that took place.  Christ looked like us on that cross.   When God looks at a believer, He see His Son's shining glory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh... and some people do not believe that people die in the very day they get down on their knees and worship an edible mangod after being deceived by a talking serpent into believing the nonsense that they would live forever in paradise if they did...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is for those that have an ear to hear.  Christ spoke in parables to protect those who didn't  "get it",   and to discern those who did.  Disbelief has no bearing on the events that transpired.  God saved his children whether you believe it or not.  You are the only one impacted by your disbelief.  My destination is secure regardless of your convictions.  It is a personal walk.  Free to everyone. Accepted by a few.
> 
> There were lifeboats available on the Titanic that were only half full because not everybody believed they were sinking...  Those that did were saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them. Jeremiah 25:15

Just art thou,  in these thy judgments, thou Holy one who art and wast; For they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink. Revelation 16:5

Bottoms up!


----------



## The Irish Ram

ChrisL said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are never banished from God.  When Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, God went with them.  Our imperfections were dealt with at the cross.  Those who accept the gift of propitiation, are considered the perfection of Christ, by God.  That was the exchange that took place.  Christ looked like us on that cross.   When God looks at a believer, He see His Son's shining glory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ (if he really even existed) was just a man.  A smart and intelligent man who didn't like violence, but a MAN nonetheless.  The myth of god is no different than the myths of other gods that other cultures believed in.
Click to expand...


Chris, If He didn't exist what makes you think he was anything, let alone smart and intelligent (same thing)?  And if He did exist and you accept the premise that he was smart and intelligent, why would you then dismiss that in front of thousands, he cured blindness, crippled limbs, and raised people from death?  If He was intelligent, why go to such lengths to get himself hung on a cross?  Even those who hated him, couldn't deny the miracles  they saw Him perform with their own eyes.  Ordinary, He was not. And the difference that you overlook between Christ and Buddha, Mohammad, and the other religious figures, is that only one was witnessed to be present after being declared dead.  That is due to the power of 1 God.


----------



## The Irish Ram

hobelim said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are never banished from God.  When Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, God went with them.  Our imperfections were dealt with at the cross.  Those who accept the gift of propitiation, are considered the perfection of Christ, by God.  That was the exchange that took place.  Christ looked like us on that cross.   When God looks at a believer, He see His Son's shining glory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh... and some people do not believe that people die in the very day they get down on their knees and worship an edible mangod after being deceived by a talking serpent into believing the nonsense that they would live forever in paradise if they did...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is for those that have an ear to hear.  Christ spoke in parables to protect those who didn't  "get it",   and to discern those who did.  Disbelief has no bearing on the events that transpired.  God saved his children whether you believe it or not.  You are the only one impacted by your disbelief.  My destination is secure regardless of your convictions.  It is a personal walk.  Free to everyone. Accepted by a few.
> 
> There were lifeboats available on the Titanic that were only half full because not everybody believed they were sinking...  Those that did were saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them. Jeremiah 25:15
> 
> Just art thou,  in these thy judgments, thou Holy one who art and wast; For they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink. Revelation 16:5
> 
> Bottoms up!
Click to expand...


Hob,
Hebrews 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.


----------



## hobelim

The Irish Ram said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are never banished from God.  When Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, God went with them.  Our imperfections were dealt with at the cross.  Those who accept the gift of propitiation, are considered the perfection of Christ, by God.  That was the exchange that took place.  Christ looked like us on that cross.   When God looks at a believer, He see His Son's shining glory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh... and some people do not believe that people die in the very day they get down on their knees and worship an edible mangod after being deceived by a talking serpent into believing the nonsense that they would live forever in paradise if they did...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is for those that have an ear to hear.  Christ spoke in parables to protect those who didn't  "get it",   and to discern those who did.  Disbelief has no bearing on the events that transpired.  God saved his children whether you believe it or not.  You are the only one impacted by your disbelief.  My destination is secure regardless of your convictions.  It is a personal walk.  Free to everyone. Accepted by a few.
> 
> There were lifeboats available on the Titanic that were only half full because not everybody believed they were sinking...  Those that did were saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them. Jeremiah 25:15
> 
> Just art thou,  in these thy judgments, thou Holy one who art and wast; For they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink. Revelation 16:5
> 
> Bottoms up!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hob,
> Hebrews 9:15
> For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
Click to expand...


When Jesus came and taught that there was deeper meaning in the law and that the words used were figurative and the subjects hidden he was leading people back to *the way* that Moses originally taught to understand and follow the law, the first covenant, the only *way* that leads to the promise of eternal life fulfilled and the sanctuary of God being firmly established among human beings.. When the people turned aside from* the way *that Moses taught to follow after his death they began to follow the oral law, detailed instructions about how to comply with the literal letter of the very law that was never intended to be taken literally which had become a thousand year tradition by the time Christ first appeared..

this is the only way to resolve the contradiction presented by scripture which states that the law was made obsolete and scripture which states that the law will remain forever in effect and in full force.

What became obsolete was the wrong way to conform to the divine commands, the oral law, what Jesus called the traditions of men,  not the law itself.


The fact that you, not to mention a few others, claim that a person can receive eternal life by worshiping something made by human hands yet are oblivious to the irrefutable fact that you demonstrate all of the signs associated with the dead is proof that the law is still in effect and remains in full force.


----------



## zaangalewa

The Irish Ram said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have one or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about this. There's maybe indeed a kind of prove for the existance of a soul.  For sure something existed - let me say a thousand or a million or a billion years ago - what was necesarry for your existance now. If someone could travel back in time he could easily erase your existance by destroying in former times this what I would call "the way of your soul". (But we don't know in this case anything about the new way a soul would go). I'm not sure wether this experiment by thoughts shows that a soul has necessarily to exist - although we are not able now and here to notice the ways of the souls of the futures.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Christ died, was no out of the ordinary event.  That he returned from the dead was an extraordinary event, and indicates that there is indeed life after death.
Click to expand...


If someone believes then the belief in a soul and/or afterlife is not a problem. I'm by the way also able to explain that an afterlife is possible in case a soul is not existing. Christians believe in a surrection of a [transformed] body - so there's no need to separate body and soul.



> read the accounts of the 2 formerly dead priests that returned with Christ,



What? Two formerly dead priests? Never heard anything about.



> and gave testimony to the events,at the Temple,  you'll see that just like the Bible describes, those men were alive and well, absent from there terrestrial shells, and were waiting in Abraham's bosom for the appearance of Christ.  Those souls could not enter heaven until pure blood was shed for their sins. Aprox. 10,000 souls, reunited with their (glorified at that point) bodies, returned with Christ, and ascended with him 40 days later.



A strange story that seems to be important for you. In our tradition we pray 40 days if someone dies. So we accompany a beloved dead person with prayers and this helps to find orientation - as well for the dead person with the lights of our souls - as well for us ourselve in our concrete life here, because it minimizes normally our suffer to be able to help. For sure best wishes and the will to help are never wrong - even if someone is not able to believe in such stories.

The following ritual shows how we bury our highest political authorities - the german emperor who lived in Vienna before Napoleon destroyed the holy empire. Because of  Napoleons attacks he was only the Austrian emperor any longer. Someone knocks in this ritual three times. A monk asks "Who is there?". Later  2 times is the anwer "We don't know him" and the last answer is to open the doors. The text starts after the first knocking with all international  titles and mights and honors -  reduces after the second knocking to the personal name and title - and ends after the third knocking with the forename and "_a poor sinner_". That's what we are - everyone of us - without any exception. Poor sinners. Everyone needs the grace of god.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says in the Bible.  It specifically states that Jesus actually awoke from the dead. There were allegedly women there who witnessed it and saw his tomb was empty!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the women reported. Should we not trust in women?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't even make sense, and shows your ignorance, like putting it up on a billboard with flashing lights!
Click to expand...


What makes no sense?


----------



## HUGGY

zaangalewa said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human ever born has a soul. _Nonsense!_  And a human spirit. _More Nonsense!_ Spirits are eternal. _Completely un provable!_  We never cease to exist. _After death we only exist in the memories of those that knew us._  We are also given the opportunity to house a portion of the Holy Spirit of God. _More wishful thinking._  The soul and the Holy Spirit are never to be subject to the human spirit.  The Holy Spirit feeds the soul.  The human spirit was the last thing Christ dealt with on the cross.   He commanded it to remove itself to the Father.  It is the breath of life God breathed into Adam, and is passed on down from parent to child.  When it leaves the body, the body ceases to function.  It dies.  You don't.  You merely step right out of the terrestrial part.  This life as we know it is merely a blip in our eternal life.  It is basic training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about this. There's maybe indeed a kind of prove for the existance of a soul.  For sure something existed - let me say a thousand or a million or a billion years ago - what was necesarry for your existance now. If someone could travel back in time he could easily erase your existance by destroying in former times this what I would call "the way of your soul". (But we don't know in this case anything about the new way a soul would go). I'm not sure wether this experiment by thoughts shows that a soul has necessarily to exist - although we are not able now and here to notice the ways of the souls of the futures.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Christ died, was no out of the ordinary event.  That he returned from the dead was an extraordinary event, and indicates that there is indeed life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone believes then the belief in a soul and/or afterlife is not a problem. I'm by the way also able to explain that an afterlife is possible in case a soul is not existing. Christians believe in a surrection of a [transformed] body - so there's no need to separate body and soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read the accounts of the 2 formerly dead priests that returned with Christ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Two formerly dead priests? Never heard anything about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and gave testimony to the events,at the Temple,  you'll see that just like the Bible describes, those men were alive and well, absent from there terrestrial shells, and were waiting in Abraham's bosom for the appearance of Christ.  Those souls could not enter heaven until pure blood was shed for their sins. Aprox. 10,000 souls, reunited with their (glorified at that point) bodies, returned with Christ, and ascended with him 40 days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A strange story that seems to be important for you. In our tradition we pray 40 days if someone dies. So we accompany a beloved dead person with prayers and this helps to find orientation - as well for the dead person with the lights of our souls - as well for us ourselve in our concrete life here, because it minimizes normally our suffer to be able to help. For sure best wishes and the will to help are never wrong - even if someone is not able to believe in such stories.
> 
> The following ritual shows how we bury our highest political authorities - the german emperor who lived in Vienna before Napoleon destroyed the holy empire. Because of  Napoleons attacks he was only the Austrian emperor any longer. Someone knocks in this ritual three times. A monk asks "Who is there?". Later  2 times is the anwer "We don't know him" and the last answer is to open the doors. The text starts after the first knocking with all international  titles and mights and honors -  reduces after the second knocking to the personal name and title - and ends after the third knocking with the forename and "_a poor sinner_". That's what we are - everyone of us - without any exception. Poor sinners. Everyone needs the grace of god.
Click to expand...


*"Everyone needs the grace of god"

Nonsense!*  We are all responsible for our own behavior, *ESPECIALLY* people who have the audacity to assume the leadership of others.  There are no "gimmies".  There is no "forgiveness".  There are no "mulligans".   

An atheist takes the lead position seriously.  He or she understands the weight of the responsibility in telling others to risk their lives to support the leader's decisions.  Unless the atheist is also a psychopath and a sociopath he or she must absolutely believe in any "path" chosen that risks other's lost future.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ppl? people?
> 
> While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?
> 
> That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.
> 
> What?
> 
> ¿God is allknowing?
> 
> Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?
> 
> I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.
> 
> I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.
> 
> The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.
> 
> ?
> 
> Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok here goes, James who has been discussing the same thing with me that you are, can do so without acting like I am attacking him. We might not agree but we can not agree without the need to get combative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "combative" ... Sorry if I slashed your monitior from inside with my longsword. But still your head seems to be on your neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And next time you feel the need to attack my spelling or grammar, realise that I'm not typing in my mother tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you should think it is englsh what I am using then this is also only an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw you are proving my point. I don't hate any religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A professional killer shoots now two time now after saying so. Let me take a look. Hmmm - no holes in my monitor. Seems to be true. Nevertheless I don't have the feeling anyone who is religious should trust in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look for my other posts on this forum you'll see I try to treat ppl with respect even those I don't agree with, What I have immens trouble with is bigotry in any form. If you don't like what I say, that's your right, but don't come at me with "you hate us" because you don't agree, try to show me why I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said somethijng to you and you answered with many "friendly" words: "I am innocent, bastard". But if you ask about wrongness: You are by the way completly wrong to try to see in natural science a substitute for religions. Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural science is not a religion - never was - never will be. See you do agree with me. This is what started the conversation with James for me. If you have faith good for you. When your faith feels the need to equate itself with science there's a problem. Genesis as a parable isn't a problem. People actually believing and defending a statement saying the earth is 6000 years old is a problem. Because the only way you can make that statement hold up is to make science go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 6000 years was the first approximation - meanwhile we speak about 13.82 billion years in case of the universe and about four and a half billion years in case of the solar system and the planet Earth. The man who had the first time in history of mankind the idea to ask the quantity of years since the world was created was a genius. So you can see: You are the ignorant who attacks what he doesn't understand far from reasons of science. I would be really happy if atheists would understand that atheism is also only a belief. The belief not to believe is indeed a little more paradox than to believe in god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that you bring that up, considering that Christians have tortured and murdered people throughout history for "heresy" as well as for being "witches" and other such things.
Click to expand...


As far as I know in the moment some hundred in some hundred years. If you have a problem with a very concrete situation in history then I'm ready to help you to find out what was going on there and what this means today for us.  Whatever had happened in histroy gives for sure no one - also not the government of the USA - any right to murder and/or to torture anyone.

Taizé - Behüte mich Gott


----------



## zaangalewa

HUGGY said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trained to believe a lot of religious psycho babble.  A whole lot of energy has been wasted attempting to mold the reality of existence to fit this daydream of some goat herders 2000 years ago.  Science has had these religions back peddling since the inventions of Galileo and others.  You that insist on justifying your fearful imaginations have murdered and tortured in the name of protecting your gods from science.
> 
> It is all just nonsense.  They have offered you this un-provable carrot of a life everlasting and because you cannot accept the stark cold reality of the finality of the end of our lives when we die you insist on believing the fantasy.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion.  It is just accepting the most likely truth and refusing to waste what little time we have on bullshit.  It is just an understanding that there is no meaning to our existence.  There is no secret key to special favor that will allow us more time than we get here on earth.
> 
> You choosing to believe in fantasy stories of souls and heavens and hells does not make them true.  If you feel safer with the make believe then maybe for you that is the best way to face the inevitable.  One thing for sure is that no man or woman has ever come back from the dead to verify your fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about this. There's maybe indeed a kind of prove for the existance of a soul.  For sure something existed - let me say a thousand or a million or a billion years ago - what was necesarry for your existance now. If someone could travel back in time he could easily erase your existance by destroying in former times this what I would call "the way of your soul". (But we don't know in this case anything about the new way a soul would go). I'm not sure wether this experiment by thoughts shows that a soul has necessarily to exist - although we are not able now and here to notice the ways of the souls of the futures.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Christ died, was no out of the ordinary event.  That he returned from the dead was an extraordinary event, and indicates that there is indeed life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone believes then the belief in a soul and/or afterlife is not a problem. I'm by the way also able to explain that an afterlife is possible in case a soul is not existing. Christians believe in a surrection of a [transformed] body - so there's no need to separate body and soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read the accounts of the 2 formerly dead priests that returned with Christ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Two formerly dead priests? Never heard anything about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and gave testimony to the events,at the Temple,  you'll see that just like the Bible describes, those men were alive and well, absent from there terrestrial shells, and were waiting in Abraham's bosom for the appearance of Christ.  Those souls could not enter heaven until pure blood was shed for their sins. Aprox. 10,000 souls, reunited with their (glorified at that point) bodies, returned with Christ, and ascended with him 40 days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A strange story that seems to be important for you. In our tradition we pray 40 days if someone dies. So we accompany a beloved dead person with prayers and this helps to find orientation - as well for the dead person with the lights of our souls - as well for us ourselve in our concrete life here, because it minimizes normally our suffer to be able to help. For sure best wishes and the will to help are never wrong - even if someone is not able to believe in such stories.
> 
> The following ritual shows how we bury our highest political authorities - the german emperor who lived in Vienna before Napoleon destroyed the holy empire. Because of  Napoleons attacks he was only the Austrian emperor any longer. Someone knocks in this ritual three times. A monk asks "Who is there?". Later  2 times is the anwer "We don't know him" and the last answer is to open the doors. The text starts after the first knocking with all international  titles and mights and honors -  reduces after the second knocking to the personal name and title - and ends after the third knocking with the forename and "_a poor sinner_". That's what we are - everyone of us - without any exception. Poor sinners. Everyone needs the grace of god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Everyone needs the grace of god"
> 
> Nonsense!*  We are all responsible for our own behavior, *ESPECIALLY* people who have the audacity to assume the leadership of others.  There are no "gimmies".  There is no "forgiveness".  There are no "mulligans".
> 
> An atheist takes the lead position seriously.  He or she understands the weight of the responsibility in telling others to risk their lives to support the leader's decisions.  Unless the atheist is also a psychopath and a sociopath he or she must absolutely believe in any "path" chosen that risks other's lost future.
Click to expand...


"We" (=spiritual human beings believing in god) will see what you think about after your death. And you are right: You are - like everyone else -  responsible in the eyes of god for your deeds - that's what "responsibility" means. Responsibilty and freedom are the two sides of the same coin. There's no difference between anyone on this planet - everyone is responsible - no one has any excuse. On the other side: Everyone is free. To live on the own free will in slavery is also not an excuse.


----------



## HUGGY

zaangalewa said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you cannot prove that the soul does not exist. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about this. There's maybe indeed a kind of prove for the existance of a soul.  For sure something existed - let me say a thousand or a million or a billion years ago - what was necesarry for your existance now. If someone could travel back in time he could easily erase your existance by destroying in former times this what I would call "the way of your soul". (But we don't know in this case anything about the new way a soul would go). I'm not sure wether this experiment by thoughts shows that a soul has necessarily to exist - although we are not able now and here to notice the ways of the souls of the futures.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Christ died, was no out of the ordinary event.  That he returned from the dead was an extraordinary event, and indicates that there is indeed life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone believes then the belief in a soul and/or afterlife is not a problem. I'm by the way also able to explain that an afterlife is possible in case a soul is not existing. Christians believe in a surrection of a [transformed] body - so there's no need to separate body and soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read the accounts of the 2 formerly dead priests that returned with Christ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Two formerly dead priests? Never heard anything about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and gave testimony to the events,at the Temple,  you'll see that just like the Bible describes, those men were alive and well, absent from there terrestrial shells, and were waiting in Abraham's bosom for the appearance of Christ.  Those souls could not enter heaven until pure blood was shed for their sins. Aprox. 10,000 souls, reunited with their (glorified at that point) bodies, returned with Christ, and ascended with him 40 days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A strange story that seems to be important for you. In our tradition we pray 40 days if someone dies. So we accompany a beloved dead person with prayers and this helps to find orientation - as well for the dead person with the lights of our souls - as well for us ourselve in our concrete life here, because it minimizes normally our suffer to be able to help. For sure best wishes and the will to help are never wrong - even if someone is not able to believe in such stories.
> 
> The following ritual shows how we bury our highest political authorities - the german emperor who lived in Vienna before Napoleon destroyed the holy empire. Because of  Napoleons attacks he was only the Austrian emperor any longer. Someone knocks in this ritual three times. A monk asks "Who is there?". Later  2 times is the anwer "We don't know him" and the last answer is to open the doors. The text starts after the first knocking with all international  titles and mights and honors -  reduces after the second knocking to the personal name and title - and ends after the third knocking with the forename and "_a poor sinner_". That's what we are - everyone of us - without any exception. Poor sinners. Everyone needs the grace of god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Everyone needs the grace of god"
> 
> Nonsense!*  We are all responsible for our own behavior, *ESPECIALLY* people who have the audacity to assume the leadership of others.  There are no "gimmies".  There is no "forgiveness".  There are no "mulligans".
> 
> An atheist takes the lead position seriously.  He or she understands the weight of the responsibility in telling others to risk their lives to support the leader's decisions.  Unless the atheist is also a psychopath and a sociopath he or she must absolutely believe in any "path" chosen that risks other's lost future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We" (=spiritual human beings believing in god) will see what you think about after your death. And you are right: You are - like everyone else -  responsible in the eyes of god for your deeds - that's what "responsibility" means. Responsibilty and freedom are the two sides of the same coin. There's no difference between anyone on this planet - everyone is responsible - no one has any excuse. On the other side: Everyone is free. To live on the own free will in slavery is also not an excuse.
Click to expand...


There will be nothing after my death.  No judgement by you or anything will I have to endure.  That is by the departed. 

If I was in a position of leadership and made beau-coup mistakes that hurt the lives of those still drawing breath THAT is the only judgement I would have to pay for.  Except I would be dead.  The eyes and ears no workie.

Do you think Hitler squirms in some way tortured and uncomfortable?  If you do you are a fool.  That is why what you do while a horrible person is alive is all that matters.  There is no hell.  Adolf got away with it.  He just smooth got away with it.  All that whining about how Hitler will pay in hell is the real evil of christianity.  You all ask "what bad could believing in a god and a heaven and a hell possibly do?"  It's just THAT giving evil a pass here on earth in what I like to call "reality" based on your firm beliefs you also defer the acts of evil to the judgement of your god.  You enable acts of evil.  You are the co-conspirators of the evil that happens.  

As long as you pass judgement to some afterlife hearing and indictment you enable evil to use your stupidity against the living.


----------



## Yarddog

Socialist said:


> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.


The fact that you don't Give a Fuck means nothing, actually less than nothing. it obviously is intriguing to some people , for who knows what reason? But, accepting diversity of thought can be a nice thing.There are a variety of threads around here to choose from.  Why is it that Socialists are the most unfriendly people on the planet?  there's another infinite cycle.


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Jesus Christ really "rise from the dead" or is that just another parable? I guess, according to the religious folks, only the stories from the Bible that have been proven untrue are the "parables?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says in the Bible.  It specifically states that Jesus actually awoke from the dead. There were allegedly women there who witnessed it and saw his tomb was empty!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the women reported. Should we not trust in women?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't even make sense, and shows your ignorance, like putting it up on a billboard with flashing lights!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes no sense?
Click to expand...


Your posts.  Full of contradictions, as is typical for religious beliefs.


----------



## ChrisL

HUGGY said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about this. There's maybe indeed a kind of prove for the existance of a soul.  For sure something existed - let me say a thousand or a million or a billion years ago - what was necesarry for your existance now. If someone could travel back in time he could easily erase your existance by destroying in former times this what I would call "the way of your soul". (But we don't know in this case anything about the new way a soul would go). I'm not sure wether this experiment by thoughts shows that a soul has necessarily to exist - although we are not able now and here to notice the ways of the souls of the futures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Christ died, was no out of the ordinary event.  That he returned from the dead was an extraordinary event, and indicates that there is indeed life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone believes then the belief in a soul and/or afterlife is not a problem. I'm by the way also able to explain that an afterlife is possible in case a soul is not existing. Christians believe in a surrection of a [transformed] body - so there's no need to separate body and soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read the accounts of the 2 formerly dead priests that returned with Christ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Two formerly dead priests? Never heard anything about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and gave testimony to the events,at the Temple,  you'll see that just like the Bible describes, those men were alive and well, absent from there terrestrial shells, and were waiting in Abraham's bosom for the appearance of Christ.  Those souls could not enter heaven until pure blood was shed for their sins. Aprox. 10,000 souls, reunited with their (glorified at that point) bodies, returned with Christ, and ascended with him 40 days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A strange story that seems to be important for you. In our tradition we pray 40 days if someone dies. So we accompany a beloved dead person with prayers and this helps to find orientation - as well for the dead person with the lights of our souls - as well for us ourselve in our concrete life here, because it minimizes normally our suffer to be able to help. For sure best wishes and the will to help are never wrong - even if someone is not able to believe in such stories.
> 
> The following ritual shows how we bury our highest political authorities - the german emperor who lived in Vienna before Napoleon destroyed the holy empire. Because of  Napoleons attacks he was only the Austrian emperor any longer. Someone knocks in this ritual three times. A monk asks "Who is there?". Later  2 times is the anwer "We don't know him" and the last answer is to open the doors. The text starts after the first knocking with all international  titles and mights and honors -  reduces after the second knocking to the personal name and title - and ends after the third knocking with the forename and "_a poor sinner_". That's what we are - everyone of us - without any exception. Poor sinners. Everyone needs the grace of god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Everyone needs the grace of god"
> 
> Nonsense!*  We are all responsible for our own behavior, *ESPECIALLY* people who have the audacity to assume the leadership of others.  There are no "gimmies".  There is no "forgiveness".  There are no "mulligans".
> 
> An atheist takes the lead position seriously.  He or she understands the weight of the responsibility in telling others to risk their lives to support the leader's decisions.  Unless the atheist is also a psychopath and a sociopath he or she must absolutely believe in any "path" chosen that risks other's lost future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We" (=spiritual human beings believing in god) will see what you think about after your death. And you are right: You are - like everyone else -  responsible in the eyes of god for your deeds - that's what "responsibility" means. Responsibilty and freedom are the two sides of the same coin. There's no difference between anyone on this planet - everyone is responsible - no one has any excuse. On the other side: Everyone is free. To live on the own free will in slavery is also not an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be nothing after my death.  No judgement by you or anything will I have to endure.  That is by the departed.
> 
> If I was in a position of leadership and made beau-coup mistakes that hurt the lives of those still drawing breath THAT is the only judgement I would have to pay for.  Except I would be dead.  The eyes and ears no workie.
> 
> Do you think Hitler squirms in some way tortured and uncomfortable?  If you do you are a fool.  That is why what you do while a horrible person is alive is all that matters.  There is no hell.  Adolf got away with it.  He just smooth got away with it.  All that whining about how Hitler will pay in hell is the real evil of christianity.  You all ask "what bad could believing in a god and a heaven and a hell possibly do?"  It's just THAT giving evil a pass here on earth in what I like to call "reality" based on your firm beliefs you also defer the acts of evil to the judgement of your god.  You enable acts of evil.  You are the co-conspirators of the evil that happens.
> 
> As long as you pass judgement to some afterlife hearing and indictment you enable evil to use your stupidity against the living.
Click to expand...


And many of the people posting about being such good religious people are also PRO death penalty.  Lol.  I think that directly goes against the teachings of Christ.


----------



## Yarddog

ChrisL said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Christ died, was no out of the ordinary event.  That he returned from the dead was an extraordinary event, and indicates that there is indeed life after death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone believes then the belief in a soul and/or afterlife is not a problem. I'm by the way also able to explain that an afterlife is possible in case a soul is not existing. Christians believe in a surrection of a [transformed] body - so there's no need to separate body and soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read the accounts of the 2 formerly dead priests that returned with Christ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Two formerly dead priests? Never heard anything about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and gave testimony to the events,at the Temple,  you'll see that just like the Bible describes, those men were alive and well, absent from there terrestrial shells, and were waiting in Abraham's bosom for the appearance of Christ.  Those souls could not enter heaven until pure blood was shed for their sins. Aprox. 10,000 souls, reunited with their (glorified at that point) bodies, returned with Christ, and ascended with him 40 days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A strange story that seems to be important for you. In our tradition we pray 40 days if someone dies. So we accompany a beloved dead person with prayers and this helps to find orientation - as well for the dead person with the lights of our souls - as well for us ourselve in our concrete life here, because it minimizes normally our suffer to be able to help. For sure best wishes and the will to help are never wrong - even if someone is not able to believe in such stories.
> 
> The following ritual shows how we bury our highest political authorities - the german emperor who lived in Vienna before Napoleon destroyed the holy empire. Because of  Napoleons attacks he was only the Austrian emperor any longer. Someone knocks in this ritual three times. A monk asks "Who is there?". Later  2 times is the anwer "We don't know him" and the last answer is to open the doors. The text starts after the first knocking with all international  titles and mights and honors -  reduces after the second knocking to the personal name and title - and ends after the third knocking with the forename and "_a poor sinner_". That's what we are - everyone of us - without any exception. Poor sinners. Everyone needs the grace of god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Everyone needs the grace of god"
> 
> Nonsense!*  We are all responsible for our own behavior, *ESPECIALLY* people who have the audacity to assume the leadership of others.  There are no "gimmies".  There is no "forgiveness".  There are no "mulligans".
> 
> An atheist takes the lead position seriously.  He or she understands the weight of the responsibility in telling others to risk their lives to support the leader's decisions.  Unless the atheist is also a psychopath and a sociopath he or she must absolutely believe in any "path" chosen that risks other's lost future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We" (=spiritual human beings believing in god) will see what you think about after your death. And you are right: You are - like everyone else -  responsible in the eyes of god for your deeds - that's what "responsibility" means. Responsibilty and freedom are the two sides of the same coin. There's no difference between anyone on this planet - everyone is responsible - no one has any excuse. On the other side: Everyone is free. To live on the own free will in slavery is also not an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be nothing after my death.  No judgement by you or anything will I have to endure.  That is by the departed.
> 
> If I was in a position of leadership and made beau-coup mistakes that hurt the lives of those still drawing breath THAT is the only judgement I would have to pay for.  Except I would be dead.  The eyes and ears no workie.
> 
> Do you think Hitler squirms in some way tortured and uncomfortable?  If you do you are a fool.  That is why what you do while a horrible person is alive is all that matters.  There is no hell.  Adolf got away with it.  He just smooth got away with it.  All that whining about how Hitler will pay in hell is the real evil of christianity.  You all ask "what bad could believing in a god and a heaven and a hell possibly do?"  It's just THAT giving evil a pass here on earth in what I like to call "reality" based on your firm beliefs you also defer the acts of evil to the judgement of your god.  You enable acts of evil.  You are the co-conspirators of the evil that happens.
> 
> As long as you pass judgement to some afterlife hearing and indictment you enable evil to use your stupidity against the living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many of the people posting about being such good religious people are also PRO death penalty.  Lol.  I think that directly goes against the teachings of Christ.
Click to expand...

Im not so sure that Jesus was anti Death penalty.     There was that phrase he used,   " render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's"  ( or something like that)      I think that means to obey the laws in the Temporal world as they are in place and then to live your personal life in a way that is obedient to God, with the emphasis of the next life which is supposed to be eternal.
Jesus did allow himself to be executed with that same understanding I think


----------



## ChrisL

Yarddog said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone believes then the belief in a soul and/or afterlife is not a problem. I'm by the way also able to explain that an afterlife is possible in case a soul is not existing. Christians believe in a surrection of a [transformed] body - so there's no need to separate body and soul.
> 
> What? Two formerly dead priests? Never heard anything about.
> 
> A strange story that seems to be important for you. In our tradition we pray 40 days if someone dies. So we accompany a beloved dead person with prayers and this helps to find orientation - as well for the dead person with the lights of our souls - as well for us ourselve in our concrete life here, because it minimizes normally our suffer to be able to help. For sure best wishes and the will to help are never wrong - even if someone is not able to believe in such stories.
> 
> The following ritual shows how we bury our highest political authorities - the german emperor who lived in Vienna before Napoleon destroyed the holy empire. Because of  Napoleons attacks he was only the Austrian emperor any longer. Someone knocks in this ritual three times. A monk asks "Who is there?". Later  2 times is the anwer "We don't know him" and the last answer is to open the doors. The text starts after the first knocking with all international  titles and mights and honors -  reduces after the second knocking to the personal name and title - and ends after the third knocking with the forename and "_a poor sinner_". That's what we are - everyone of us - without any exception. Poor sinners. Everyone needs the grace of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Everyone needs the grace of god"
> 
> Nonsense!*  We are all responsible for our own behavior, *ESPECIALLY* people who have the audacity to assume the leadership of others.  There are no "gimmies".  There is no "forgiveness".  There are no "mulligans".
> 
> An atheist takes the lead position seriously.  He or she understands the weight of the responsibility in telling others to risk their lives to support the leader's decisions.  Unless the atheist is also a psychopath and a sociopath he or she must absolutely believe in any "path" chosen that risks other's lost future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We" (=spiritual human beings believing in god) will see what you think about after your death. And you are right: You are - like everyone else -  responsible in the eyes of god for your deeds - that's what "responsibility" means. Responsibilty and freedom are the two sides of the same coin. There's no difference between anyone on this planet - everyone is responsible - no one has any excuse. On the other side: Everyone is free. To live on the own free will in slavery is also not an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be nothing after my death.  No judgement by you or anything will I have to endure.  That is by the departed.
> 
> If I was in a position of leadership and made beau-coup mistakes that hurt the lives of those still drawing breath THAT is the only judgement I would have to pay for.  Except I would be dead.  The eyes and ears no workie.
> 
> Do you think Hitler squirms in some way tortured and uncomfortable?  If you do you are a fool.  That is why what you do while a horrible person is alive is all that matters.  There is no hell.  Adolf got away with it.  He just smooth got away with it.  All that whining about how Hitler will pay in hell is the real evil of christianity.  You all ask "what bad could believing in a god and a heaven and a hell possibly do?"  It's just THAT giving evil a pass here on earth in what I like to call "reality" based on your firm beliefs you also defer the acts of evil to the judgement of your god.  You enable acts of evil.  You are the co-conspirators of the evil that happens.
> 
> As long as you pass judgement to some afterlife hearing and indictment you enable evil to use your stupidity against the living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many of the people posting about being such good religious people are also PRO death penalty.  Lol.  I think that directly goes against the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not so sure that Jesus was anti Death penalty.     There was that phrase he used,   " render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's"  ( or something like that)      I think that means to obey the laws in the Temporal world as they are in place and then to live your personal life in a way that is obedient to God, with the emphasis of the next life which is supposed to be eternal.
> Jesus did allow himself to be executed with that same understanding I think
Click to expand...


I don't think so.  Jesus forgave the other "sinners" who were crucified along with him.  He was not a fan of "killing."  Of course the religious people will say otherwise to make themselves sound better.


----------



## The Irish Ram

ChrisL, He didn't overtly save the other sinners. Of the 2 thieves He was hanging between, He ignored the mocking from one, and the one who recognized Him for who He really was, was saved that very day.  The only way that the other may have been forgiven was in the blanket plea Jesus made to forgive those who knew not what they did.


----------



## Yarddog

ChrisL said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Everyone needs the grace of god"
> 
> Nonsense!*  We are all responsible for our own behavior, *ESPECIALLY* people who have the audacity to assume the leadership of others.  There are no "gimmies".  There is no "forgiveness".  There are no "mulligans".
> 
> An atheist takes the lead position seriously.  He or she understands the weight of the responsibility in telling others to risk their lives to support the leader's decisions.  Unless the atheist is also a psychopath and a sociopath he or she must absolutely believe in any "path" chosen that risks other's lost future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We" (=spiritual human beings believing in god) will see what you think about after your death. And you are right: You are - like everyone else -  responsible in the eyes of god for your deeds - that's what "responsibility" means. Responsibilty and freedom are the two sides of the same coin. There's no difference between anyone on this planet - everyone is responsible - no one has any excuse. On the other side: Everyone is free. To live on the own free will in slavery is also not an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be nothing after my death.  No judgement by you or anything will I have to endure.  That is by the departed.
> 
> If I was in a position of leadership and made beau-coup mistakes that hurt the lives of those still drawing breath THAT is the only judgement I would have to pay for.  Except I would be dead.  The eyes and ears no workie.
> 
> Do you think Hitler squirms in some way tortured and uncomfortable?  If you do you are a fool.  That is why what you do while a horrible person is alive is all that matters.  There is no hell.  Adolf got away with it.  He just smooth got away with it.  All that whining about how Hitler will pay in hell is the real evil of christianity.  You all ask "what bad could believing in a god and a heaven and a hell possibly do?"  It's just THAT giving evil a pass here on earth in what I like to call "reality" based on your firm beliefs you also defer the acts of evil to the judgement of your god.  You enable acts of evil.  You are the co-conspirators of the evil that happens.
> 
> As long as you pass judgement to some afterlife hearing and indictment you enable evil to use your stupidity against the living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many of the people posting about being such good religious people are also PRO death penalty.  Lol.  I think that directly goes against the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not so sure that Jesus was anti Death penalty.     There was that phrase he used,   " render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's"  ( or something like that)      I think that means to obey the laws in the Temporal world as they are in place and then to live your personal life in a way that is obedient to God, with the emphasis of the next life which is supposed to be eternal.
> Jesus did allow himself to be executed with that same understanding I think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  Jesus forgave the other "sinners" who were crucified along with him.  He was not a fan of "killing."  Of course the religious people will say otherwise to make themselves sound better.
Click to expand...



I know a lot is open to interpretation,   I'm not saying thats the way it is,   but just a way of looking at it .


----------



## ChrisL

Yarddog said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We" (=spiritual human beings believing in god) will see what you think about after your death. And you are right: You are - like everyone else -  responsible in the eyes of god for your deeds - that's what "responsibility" means. Responsibilty and freedom are the two sides of the same coin. There's no difference between anyone on this planet - everyone is responsible - no one has any excuse. On the other side: Everyone is free. To live on the own free will in slavery is also not an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be nothing after my death.  No judgement by you or anything will I have to endure.  That is by the departed.
> 
> If I was in a position of leadership and made beau-coup mistakes that hurt the lives of those still drawing breath THAT is the only judgement I would have to pay for.  Except I would be dead.  The eyes and ears no workie.
> 
> Do you think Hitler squirms in some way tortured and uncomfortable?  If you do you are a fool.  That is why what you do while a horrible person is alive is all that matters.  There is no hell.  Adolf got away with it.  He just smooth got away with it.  All that whining about how Hitler will pay in hell is the real evil of christianity.  You all ask "what bad could believing in a god and a heaven and a hell possibly do?"  It's just THAT giving evil a pass here on earth in what I like to call "reality" based on your firm beliefs you also defer the acts of evil to the judgement of your god.  You enable acts of evil.  You are the co-conspirators of the evil that happens.
> 
> As long as you pass judgement to some afterlife hearing and indictment you enable evil to use your stupidity against the living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many of the people posting about being such good religious people are also PRO death penalty.  Lol.  I think that directly goes against the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not so sure that Jesus was anti Death penalty.     There was that phrase he used,   " render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's"  ( or something like that)      I think that means to obey the laws in the Temporal world as they are in place and then to live your personal life in a way that is obedient to God, with the emphasis of the next life which is supposed to be eternal.
> Jesus did allow himself to be executed with that same understanding I think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  Jesus forgave the other "sinners" who were crucified along with him.  He was not a fan of "killing."  Of course the religious people will say otherwise to make themselves sound better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot is open to interpretation,   I'm not saying thats the way it is,   but just a way of looking at it .
Click to expand...


Sorry, I just find that people who claim to be religious are very hateful people in reality.


----------



## Yarddog

ChrisL said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be nothing after my death.  No judgement by you or anything will I have to endure.  That is by the departed.
> 
> If I was in a position of leadership and made beau-coup mistakes that hurt the lives of those still drawing breath THAT is the only judgement I would have to pay for.  Except I would be dead.  The eyes and ears no workie.
> 
> Do you think Hitler squirms in some way tortured and uncomfortable?  If you do you are a fool.  That is why what you do while a horrible person is alive is all that matters.  There is no hell.  Adolf got away with it.  He just smooth got away with it.  All that whining about how Hitler will pay in hell is the real evil of christianity.  You all ask "what bad could believing in a god and a heaven and a hell possibly do?"  It's just THAT giving evil a pass here on earth in what I like to call "reality" based on your firm beliefs you also defer the acts of evil to the judgement of your god.  You enable acts of evil.  You are the co-conspirators of the evil that happens.
> 
> As long as you pass judgement to some afterlife hearing and indictment you enable evil to use your stupidity against the living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many of the people posting about being such good religious people are also PRO death penalty.  Lol.  I think that directly goes against the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not so sure that Jesus was anti Death penalty.     There was that phrase he used,   " render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and render unto God what is God's"  ( or something like that)      I think that means to obey the laws in the Temporal world as they are in place and then to live your personal life in a way that is obedient to God, with the emphasis of the next life which is supposed to be eternal.
> Jesus did allow himself to be executed with that same understanding I think
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  Jesus forgave the other "sinners" who were crucified along with him.  He was not a fan of "killing."  Of course the religious people will say otherwise to make themselves sound better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot is open to interpretation,   I'm not saying thats the way it is,   but just a way of looking at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I just find that people who claim to be religious are very hateful people in reality.
Click to expand...



Well, its true Ive seen those, sometimes spiteful people,   but Ive seen very nice ones too.   Do you feel that the death penalty is in place due to Hate?  or as a Deterant?  I always thought it was the latter myself.


----------



## james bond

The Irish Ram said:


> Adaptation is what Darwin noted in birds beaks and mistook it for a new species.  It was the same bird, whose beak had adapted to take advantage of the foliage on a different island.  Living things adapt to their surroundings.  They do not morph into different species.  Had Darwin known about DNA, we would never had heard of Darwin.  To this day, Monkey DNA remains monkey DNA.  Because it is similar to ours means absolutely nothing. A cloud, a watermelon and a jelly fish have similar properties.  That doesn't mean that a watermelon used to be a jellyfish.  Had Darwin been correct we would literally be walking on the millions of years worth of missing link bones per species, necessary for one species to become something other than what it started out being.  For a species to morph into something different, a mistake has to be produced in the DNA.   The exact same mistake would have to reoccur, exactly, for millions of generations to create a different species. Exact same mistake is an oxymoron.    DNA is self correcting.



The atheist scientists just ignore this.  They were wrong about junk DNA.  Darwin wasn't the only one who thought species change by natural selection.  Alfred Russell Wallace had the same theory, and Darwin was fortunate to get his publication in first.  Even then, he had to fight off charges of plagiarism.

There was a bit of a problem with all of this natural selection stuff, though: Darwin didn’t know how it, uh, worked. Offspring had a mix of their parents’ features, sure. But how? What was going on at the moment of conception? It was a huge hole in Darwin’s theory of evolution. So in 1868, almost a decade after he published _On the Origin of Species_, Darwin tried to plug that hole with the theory of “pangenesis,” a wildly wrong idea that goes a little something like this:

Every cell in our bodies sheds tiny particles called gemmules, “which are dispersed throughout the whole system,” Darwin wrote, and “these, when supplied with proper nutriment, multiply by self-division, and are ultimately developed into units like those from which they were originally derived.” Gemmules are, in essence, seeds of cells. “They are collected from all parts of the system to constitute the sexual elements, and their development in the next generation forms a new being.”

Because both parents contribute these cell seeds, offspring end up blending the features of mom and dad. But what about a child exhibiting more features of one parent than the other? This comes about when “the gemmules in the fertilized germ are superabundant in number,” where the gemmules “derived from one parent may have some advantage in number, affinity, or vigor over those derived from the other parent.” In other words, they kinda just put more effort into it.

Gemmules must develop in the proper order to build a healthy organism. When something glitches along the way, though, you get birth defects. “According to the doctrine of pangenesis,” Darwin wrote, “the gemmules of the transposed organs become developed in the wrong place, from uniting with wrong cells or aggregates of cells during their nascent state.”

But most important of all, Darwin’s theory of pangenesis could finally explain variations among organisms—the raw fuel of evolution. This has two causes. First, “fluctuating variability” comes from “the deficiency, superabundance, and transposition of gemmules, and the redevelopment of those which have long been dormant.” In other words, they’re expressed in a grandchild after skipping a generation, though the gemmules themselves haven’t “undergone any modification.”

Fantastically Wrong: What Darwin Really Screwed Up About Evolution

What exactly did Darwin get right besides modication by natural selection?


----------



## james bond

ChrisL said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
Click to expand...


I'm answering your questions, and not cherry picking any data.  Where are your answers?


----------



## ChrisL

james bond said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine if some of you do not want to think about it and want to follow some ancient men's book from thousands of years ago, but anyone who opens their eyes and looks can see it makes absolutely no sense at all.  Too many contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone seems to take the literal parts metaphorically and the metaphorical parts literally."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm answering your questions, and not cherry picking any data.  Where are your answers?
Click to expand...


Sure you are.  You choose which stories are "parables" and which are not.  Lol.  You either believe your Bible and all the fantastical stories or you do not.  Choose.


----------



## james bond

ChrisL said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's where "contradictions" are coming from:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm answering your questions, and not cherry picking any data.  Where are your answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you are.  You choose which stories are "parables" and which are not.  Lol.  You either believe your Bible and all the fantastical stories or you do not.  Choose.
Click to expand...


Still no answers.  The Bible is fantastic.  Which stories are fantastical?  I guess you mean incredulous or not willing to believe something.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.


I'll make a couple of points here.
1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.


----------



## LittleNipper

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
Click to expand...

*Just how fast can a fossil form?*

April 5, 2012 by Ian Juby



So last week I mentioned (and showed a picture of) my fossil teddy bear. I intended to discuss this in a later post, but I didn’t expect the attention it would get and people asking me “Well….what about that teddy bear???”  




A fossilized Hadrosaur egg, a modern ostrich egg, and... a fossilized teddy bear
Of course a fossil teddy bear demonstrates that either:

a) T. rex was a sissy whose teddy bear got fossilized with him, OR

b) Fossils can form rapidly.

So just how long does it take a fossil to form? Doesn’t it take thousands or millions of years? Nope. The fossilized teddy bear above only took about 3 months to make.  It’s the same process (called permineralization) that occurs with dinosaur bones.  In fact this is significant for a number of reasons.  If we were to cut into the bear, we would find that the bear _is still there._ It’s the same with fossil dinosaur bones – the bone is still there. The bone has been coated with, and permeated by rock, but the bone is still there.

This process has led to remarkable findings such as soft T. rex meat, blood vessels and blood cells found inside a fossil T. rex leg bone in Montana a few years back.  This also allows carbon dating to be done on the fossil bone, which has been done.  I’ll leave you hanging on what the results were and why it matters.

Alright, so we can make fossils quickly now, but what about the fossils in the fossil record? Didn’t they take millions of years?  Perhaps, but the fossils don’t come with dates stamped on them.  However, there are many fossils that we know fossilized very quickly. In fact, Dr. Phillip Curie (former curator of the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta) wrote in his book “101 Questions About Dinosaurs”:

“Fossilization is a process that can take anything from a few hours to millions of years.”

Wait – a _few hours?!?!???_ Yup, you heard straight from the horse’s mouth – and he’s right.  It can happen remarkably fast.  In fact the fossil fish in the Santana formation of Brazil were declared by one evolutionary researcher to have fossilized in _minutes._ It was suggested that perhaps fossilization is actually what killed the fish!




Fossil fish from the Solnhofen formation. Fish like this found in Brazil were probably fossilized in minutes.
Not only do we find fast fossils, we find _unfossilized_ dinosaur bones.  Curie mentions the Hadrosaur bone beds of Alaska in his book:

“In Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, dinosaur bones were sometimes encased in ironstone nodules shortly after they were buried 75 million years ago. The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot he distinguished from modern bone. A more spectacular example was found on the North Slope of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.”

So we find fossils that were formed incredibly fast (it did not take thousands or millions of years), we also find dinosaur remains that _should_ have fossilized, and have not.  So are those dinosaur bones millions of years old? Probably not.  In fact forensic science would contend that soft tissue and red blood cells should simply not be found in dinosaur bones alleged to be millions of years old, end of discussion.  This could be found, however, in bones that are only a few thousand years old – like the dinosaur bones we would contend were from dinosaurs killed in Noah’s flood.


----------



## ChrisL

james bond said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that you still haven't addressed my specific question about original sin and what it says in the Bible about Jesus.  Did Jesus die on the cross or not?  Is the Adam and Eve story a "parable" or not?  Do you believe these fantastical stories to be true?  What about the Ten Commandments?  Where did those come from?  God who revealed himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush?  Come on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm answering your questions, and not cherry picking any data.  Where are your answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you are.  You choose which stories are "parables" and which are not.  Lol.  You either believe your Bible and all the fantastical stories or you do not.  Choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answers.  The Bible is fantastic.  Which stories are fantastical?  I guess you mean incredulous or not willing to believe something.
Click to expand...


They are ridiculous.  Does anyone really believe that Noah built an ark and had two of each animal on it?  What did they eat?  Lol.  I'm sorry but your bible stories just do not add up when you use any kind of logic.


----------



## ChrisL

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
Click to expand...


They are living in denial.  That much is obvious.  Lol.  Of course, they are frightened to think that there is no afterlife and that the end really is the END.  They've had this stuff put into their heads since they were babies and are afraid to even question it.  That is why I say, trying to reason with religious people is like trying to reason with insane people.  It's really not worth the effort because they just aren't logical.


----------



## defcon4

ChrisL said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm answering your questions, and not cherry picking any data.  Where are your answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you are.  You choose which stories are "parables" and which are not.  Lol.  You either believe your Bible and all the fantastical stories or you do not.  Choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answers.  The Bible is fantastic.  Which stories are fantastical?  I guess you mean incredulous or not willing to believe something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are ridiculous.  Does anyone really believe that Noah built an ark and had two of each animal on it?  What did they eat?  Lol.  I'm sorry but your bible stories just do not add up when you use any kind of logic.
Click to expand...

It was huge ark.


----------



## LittleNipper

ChrisL said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your answer?
> 
> Here's mine.  OS meant banishment from going  against God and we lost perfection.  We still have it to this day.  Yes.  No.  Yes.  What about it?  Moses.  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make sense.  You are just cherry picking your data.  There is no such thing as "perfection" especially when it comes to human beings.  Most of you religious folks are extremely hateful and divisive.  You need a lot of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm answering your questions, and not cherry picking any data.  Where are your answers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you are.  You choose which stories are "parables" and which are not.  Lol.  You either believe your Bible and all the fantastical stories or you do not.  Choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answers.  The Bible is fantastic.  Which stories are fantastical?  I guess you mean incredulous or not willing to believe something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are ridiculous.  Does anyone really believe that Noah built an ark and had two of each animal on it?  What did they eat?  Lol.  I'm sorry but your bible stories just do not add up when you use any kind of logic.
Click to expand...

Genesis 7:2 You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate,

Now I do believe that the larger creatures were weaned but very young and so they were a lot smaller. I also believe in KINDS. So there were some wild wolves but every type of "Dog" was not on the ark.  I do believe in uniqueness in everything, and I also know that GOD (who according to the Bible record) brought the animals to Noah. So, for me it is totally logical that GOD would select the perfect animals of every KIND that held all the DNA necessary for diversity after the Flood. In that regard every color size and shade of every KIND as not necessary.

According to the Biblical Epic, GOD even shut the door to the Ark. Now if GOD would take charge of that, can't you logically grasp that GOD could bring just the right grouping of animals to reestablish the animal kingdom on earth? And even Noah's sons are the fathers of all the ethnic variety we have today (tall, short, muscular, lean, heavy, olive skinned, black, brown, red, white, bald, hairy, curly, straight haired, blond, brunette, auburn, six fingered/toed, etc...).

There is really no way to prove that all the fossils we find today are not a few kinds of animals at various stages of development. I mean a mega shark is just as likely a bigger version of a shark. And the only animals that went into the ark were oxygen breathing land animals. That eliminates a lot of Kinds.


----------



## LittleNipper

ChrisL said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are living in denial.  That much is obvious.  Lol.  Of course, they are frightened to think that there is no afterlife and that the end really is the END.  They've had this stuff put into their heads since they were babies and are afraid to even question it.  That is why I say, trying to reason with religious people is like trying to reason with insane people.  It's really not worth the effort because they just aren't logical.
Click to expand...


It's the atheist who is in denial and totally seems lacking any philosophical imagination. They have no logical explanation of how biological life can spring from dust, and yet they trash the only logical explanation available. GOD created matter, light, time, and life. Before that there existed only GOD. And the proof? When one is bad one reaps rotten things, and when one is good, one is content.


----------



## zaangalewa

HUGGY said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about this. There's maybe indeed a kind of prove for the existance of a soul.  For sure something existed - let me say a thousand or a million or a billion years ago - what was necesarry for your existance now. If someone could travel back in time he could easily erase your existance by destroying in former times this what I would call "the way of your soul". (But we don't know in this case anything about the new way a soul would go). I'm not sure wether this experiment by thoughts shows that a soul has necessarily to exist - although we are not able now and here to notice the ways of the souls of the futures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Christ died, was no out of the ordinary event.  That he returned from the dead was an extraordinary event, and indicates that there is indeed life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone believes then the belief in a soul and/or afterlife is not a problem. I'm by the way also able to explain that an afterlife is possible in case a soul is not existing. Christians believe in a surrection of a [transformed] body - so there's no need to separate body and soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read the accounts of the 2 formerly dead priests that returned with Christ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Two formerly dead priests? Never heard anything about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and gave testimony to the events,at the Temple,  you'll see that just like the Bible describes, those men were alive and well, absent from there terrestrial shells, and were waiting in Abraham's bosom for the appearance of Christ.  Those souls could not enter heaven until pure blood was shed for their sins. Aprox. 10,000 souls, reunited with their (glorified at that point) bodies, returned with Christ, and ascended with him 40 days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A strange story that seems to be important for you. In our tradition we pray 40 days if someone dies. So we accompany a beloved dead person with prayers and this helps to find orientation - as well for the dead person with the lights of our souls - as well for us ourselve in our concrete life here, because it minimizes normally our suffer to be able to help. For sure best wishes and the will to help are never wrong - even if someone is not able to believe in such stories.
> 
> The following ritual shows how we bury our highest political authorities - the german emperor who lived in Vienna before Napoleon destroyed the holy empire. Because of  Napoleons attacks he was only the Austrian emperor any longer. Someone knocks in this ritual three times. A monk asks "Who is there?". Later  2 times is the anwer "We don't know him" and the last answer is to open the doors. The text starts after the first knocking with all international  titles and mights and honors -  reduces after the second knocking to the personal name and title - and ends after the third knocking with the forename and "_a poor sinner_". That's what we are - everyone of us - without any exception. Poor sinners. Everyone needs the grace of god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Everyone needs the grace of god"
> 
> Nonsense!*  We are all responsible for our own behavior, *ESPECIALLY* people who have the audacity to assume the leadership of others.  There are no "gimmies".  There is no "forgiveness".  There are no "mulligans".
> 
> An atheist takes the lead position seriously.  He or she understands the weight of the responsibility in telling others to risk their lives to support the leader's decisions.  Unless the atheist is also a psychopath and a sociopath he or she must absolutely believe in any "path" chosen that risks other's lost future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We" (=spiritual human beings believing in god) will see what you think about after your death. And you are right: You are - like everyone else -  responsible in the eyes of god for your deeds - that's what "responsibility" means. Responsibilty and freedom are the two sides of the same coin. There's no difference between anyone on this planet - everyone is responsible - no one has any excuse. On the other side: Everyone is free. To live on the own free will in slavery is also not an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be nothing after my death.
Click to expand...


Hopefully not. But your are right:  Lots of people live in a way as if nothing should come after them any longer.



> No judgement by you or anything will I have to endure.  That is by the departed.



So what means "to be responsible" for you? I will have to speak with Jesus after my death. I can live with if we discuss only the bad football results. But whom do you give a response? What's the counterfort of your form of "responsibility"?



> If I was in a position of leadership and made beau-coup mistakes that hurt the lives of those still drawing breath THAT is the only judgement I would have to pay for.  Except I would be dead.  The eyes and ears no workie.
> 
> Do you think Hitler squirms in some way tortured and uncomfortable?  If you do you are a fool.



What have I to do with Hitler?



> That is why what you do while a horrible person is alive is all that matters.  There is no hell.  Adolf got away with it.  He just smooth got away with it.  All that whining about how Hitler will pay in hell is the real evil of christianity.  You all ask "what bad could believing in a god and a heaven and a hell possibly do?"  It's just THAT giving evil a pass here on earth in what I like to call "reality" based on your firm beliefs you also defer the acts of evil to the judgement of your god.  You enable acts of evil.  You are the co-conspirators of the evil that happens.
> 
> As long as you pass judgement to some afterlife hearing and indictment you enable evil to use your stupidity against the living.



Interesting what Americans think about other American - but I'm not an Amercian - I'm a Catholic - ah sorry: German. I'm a Catholic and I'm a German. Both. From both points of view is it for me very diffcult to understand what you say here.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rising from the dead is a metaphor.
> 
> First Jesus rose from the death and entombment of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices. He then ascended bodily into heaven, the highest sphere of intelligences, as he walked through life until he was killed. After three days, according to scripture, he rose again and appeared in dreams to his disciples which convinced them that Jesus survived physical death.
> 
> Their belief was that dreams are the medium through which God speaks to man. Seeing and communicating with Jesus in dreams after he died was proof enough to them that Jesus was alive and well and in the realm of God, literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what it says in the Bible.  It specifically states that Jesus actually awoke from the dead. There were allegedly women there who witnessed it and saw his tomb was empty!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the women reported. Should we not trust in women?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't even make sense, and shows your ignorance, like putting it up on a billboard with flashing lights!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes no sense?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts.  Full of contradictions, as is typical for religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Example? And please don't confuse paradoxes with contradictions as if paradoxes would be only a possibility of the own choice. Loving minds can live with paradoxes - machine minds not - but machine minds are maybe not even really living.  Someone who believes in god has lots of ways to think, because we always look for ways and if there's no way any longer then we will fall in the hands of god. He will keep us. He's our savior.


----------



## zaangalewa

Yarddog said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone believes then the belief in a soul and/or afterlife is not a problem. I'm by the way also able to explain that an afterlife is possible in case a soul is not existing. Christians believe in a surrection of a [transformed] body - so there's no need to separate body and soul.
> 
> What? Two formerly dead priests? Never heard anything about.
> 
> A strange story that seems to be important for you. In our tradition we pray 40 days if someone dies. So we accompany a beloved dead person with prayers and this helps to find orientation - as well for the dead person with the lights of our souls - as well for us ourselve in our concrete life here, because it minimizes normally our suffer to be able to help. For sure best wishes and the will to help are never wrong - even if someone is not able to believe in such stories.
> 
> The following ritual shows how we bury our highest political authorities - the german emperor who lived in Vienna before Napoleon destroyed the holy empire. Because of  Napoleons attacks he was only the Austrian emperor any longer. Someone knocks in this ritual three times. A monk asks "Who is there?". Later  2 times is the anwer "We don't know him" and the last answer is to open the doors. The text starts after the first knocking with all international  titles and mights and honors -  reduces after the second knocking to the personal name and title - and ends after the third knocking with the forename and "_a poor sinner_". That's what we are - everyone of us - without any exception. Poor sinners. Everyone needs the grace of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Everyone needs the grace of god"
> 
> Nonsense!*  We are all responsible for our own behavior, *ESPECIALLY* people who have the audacity to assume the leadership of others.  There are no "gimmies".  There is no "forgiveness".  There are no "mulligans".
> 
> An atheist takes the lead position seriously.  He or she understands the weight of the responsibility in telling others to risk their lives to support the leader's decisions.  Unless the atheist is also a psychopath and a sociopath he or she must absolutely believe in any "path" chosen that risks other's lost future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We" (=spiritual human beings believing in god) will see what you think about after your death. And you are right: You are - like everyone else -  responsible in the eyes of god for your deeds - that's what "responsibility" means. Responsibilty and freedom are the two sides of the same coin. There's no difference between anyone on this planet - everyone is responsible - no one has any excuse. On the other side: Everyone is free. To live on the own free will in slavery is also not an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be nothing after my death.  No judgement by you or anything will I have to endure.  That is by the departed.
> 
> If I was in a position of leadership and made beau-coup mistakes that hurt the lives of those still drawing breath THAT is the only judgement I would have to pay for.  Except I would be dead.  The eyes and ears no workie.
> 
> Do you think Hitler squirms in some way tortured and uncomfortable?  If you do you are a fool.  That is why what you do while a horrible person is alive is all that matters.  There is no hell.  Adolf got away with it.  He just smooth got away with it.  All that whining about how Hitler will pay in hell is the real evil of christianity.  You all ask "what bad could believing in a god and a heaven and a hell possibly do?"  It's just THAT giving evil a pass here on earth in what I like to call "reality" based on your firm beliefs you also defer the acts of evil to the judgement of your god.  You enable acts of evil.  You are the co-conspirators of the evil that happens.
> 
> As long as you pass judgement to some afterlife hearing and indictment you enable evil to use your stupidity against the living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many of the people posting about being such good religious people are also PRO death penalty.  Lol.  I think that directly goes against the teachings of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im not so sure that Jesus was anti Death penalty. ...
Click to expand...


Jesus was a victim of death penalty.


----------



## there4eyeM

Jesus was a victim? Something about the story has escaped you.


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> Jesus was a victim? Something about the story has escaped you.



Jesus was a victim of death penalty.


----------



## there4eyeM

Je repete...


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> Je repete...



Jesus was a victim of death penalty.

How long will you continue not to see the world with your own eyes?


----------



## there4eyeM

Go back and reconsider the whole story.


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> Go back and reconsider the whole story.



I don't discuss about death penalty any longer. We don't have it. But Jesus was a victim of death penalty. That's easy to understand because he died on a cross.


----------



## there4eyeM

A true victim does not set up the situation in which he/she is 'victimized'. This should not have to be told to you, and you are being insulted by being so informed. The message of what happened with Jesus has not been understood on your part. Reconsider.


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> A true victim does not set up the situation in which he/she is 'victimized'. This should not have to be told to you, and you are being insulted by being so informed. The message of what happened with Jesus has not been understood on your part. Reconsider.




13.82 billion years  universe, 4.5 billion years solar system, 600 million years evolution of multicellular organisms, 20000 years friendship with dogs, 6000 years ago a first state under the Pharaos and the Jews who left this slavery of death behind them ... Jesus ... and now I and I'm speaking with an American about that Jesus was a victim of death penalty while our world breaks down in many ways. Dear god. Why? What have I done ... okay okay ... What I like to say to you "there4eyeM": Jesus was a victim of death penalty. You can see this very good if you take your time and watch for example a crucifix and ask yourselve what the artist might have felt, who made this crucifix.


----------



## ChrisL

Wow!  Lol.    These are probably the same kinds of people who get scammed by "salesmen."


----------



## there4eyeM

The 'tree' obviously is blocking your view. (addressed to above above)


----------



## there4eyeM

Someone has assuredly been sold a bill of goods.


----------



## ChrisL

*1.  Indoctrination into Religion*

Is it coincidence that people tend to stay with whatever religion they were raised in, and this religion tends to be whatever religion is dominant in the community/nation where they live? If people were genuinely convinced by the arguments which apologists offered, shouldn't the distribution of religions around the globe be a bit more even?

The high and consistent degree of religious concentrations suggests that people believe their religion because that's the one they were indoctrinated into and which is consistently reinforced around them. People acquire a religion before critical thinking skills and that religion is promoted without most people noticing. That's really not a very good reason to believe that a religion is true, is it?


*2.  Indoctrination into Anti-Atheist Bigotry*
If you keep being told that people who don't believe in your god are evil, immoral, and a threat to the stable social order, then you would never dream of dropping your theistic religion. Who wants to be immoral or simply regarded by the rest of society as immoral? This is very much what atheists face, especially in America, and it's hard not to see theconstant indoctrination into anti-atheist bigotry as a reason why people stick to their religions. Children learn in public schools that America is a nation for people who believe in God and this message is reinforced throughout their lives by preachers, politicians, and community leaders of all sorts.

*3.  Peer and Family Pressure*
Religion can be enormously important to families and communities, creating a tremendous amount of pressure to conform to religious expectations. People who step outside those expectations are not simply choosing a different way of life, but can in fact be perceived as rejecting one of the most important bonds which keep a family or community together. Even if this is never communicated in so many words, people do learn that certain ideas, ideologies, and practices should be treated as vital to communal bonds and should therefore not be questioned. The role of peer pressure and familial pressure in maintaining at least a veneer of religiosity for many people cannot be denied.

*4.  Fear of Death*
Many religious theists try to argue atheists into believing in a god through the fear of what will happen after dying — either going to hell or simply ceasing to exist. This arguably reveals something very important about the believers themselves: they, too, must fear death as the cessation of existence and believe not because there are any good reasons to think there is an afterlife, but rather out of wishful thinking. People don't want to think that physical death is the end of all experiences, emotions, and thoughts so they insist on believing that somehow their "mind" will continue to exist without any physical brain in an eternity of sustained bliss — or even will be reincarnated in a new form.

*5.  Wishful Thinking*
The wish that physical death isn't the end of life probably isn't the only example of wishful thinking behind religious and theistic belief. There are a number of other ways in which people profess beliefs that appear to be more about what they wish were true than what they can support through good evidence and logic. Many Christians, for example, seem to wish quite strongly that there exists a place of eternal punishment awaiting all those who dare to deny them political and cultural dominion in America. Many conservative believers from many religions seem to wish that there is a god which wants them to exercise unchecked power over women and minorities.

*6.  Fear of Freedom and Responsibility*
One of the most disturbing aspects of many people's religious beliefs is the manner in which these beliefs make it possible for believers to avoid taking personal responsibility for what's going on. They don't have to be responsible for ensuring that justice is done because God will provide that. They don't have to be responsible for solving environmental problems because God will do that. They don't have to be responsible for developing strong moral rules because God has done that. They don't have to be responsible for developing sound arguments in defense of their positions because God has done that. Believers deny their own freedom because freedom means responsibility and responsibility means that if we fail, no one will rescue us.

*7.  Lack of Basic Skills in Logic and Reasoning*
Most people don't learn nearly as much about logic, reason, and constructing sound arguments as they should. Even so, the quality of arguments typically offered by believers as justification for their religious and theistic beliefs are remarkable for just how atrocious they are. If only one basic logical fallacy is committed, it can be considered an achievement. Given how important believers claim the existence of their god and truth of their religion are, you'd think that they would invest a lot of effort into constructing the best possible arguments and finding the best possible evidence. Instead, they invest a lot of effort into constructing circular rationalizations and finding anything that sounds even remotely plausible.


----------



## ChrisL

Why do we believe in God?  II

Religion is a cultural universal. Humans in every known society practice some type of religion. So it’s tempting to believe thatreligiosity is part of evolved human nature, that humans are evolutionarily designed to be religious. Well, the answer is yes and no.

In my last post, I discussed how Haselton and Nettle’s Error Management Theory explains intersexual mindreading, why men always overinfer women’s sexual interest in them. One of the great features of Error Management Theory is that it can explain a wide variety of phenomena. It is a truly general theory.







Imagine you are our ancestor living on the African savanna 100,000 years ago, and you encounter some _ambiguous situation_. For example, you heard some rustling noises nearby at night. Or you were walking in the forest, and a large fruit falling from a tree branch hits you on the head. What’s going on?

In an ambiguous situation like this, you can either attribute the phenomenon to impersonal, inanimate, and unintentional forces (for example, wind blowing gently to make the rustling noises among the bushes and leaves, or a mature fruit falling by the force of gravity and hitting you on the head purely by accident) or to personal, animate, and intentional forces (for example, a predator hiding in the dark and getting ready to attack you, or an enemy hiding in the tree branches and throwing fruits at your head). The question is, which is it?







Once again, Error Management Theory suggests that, in your inference, you can make a “Type I” error of false positive or “Type II” error of false negative, and these two types of error carry vastly different consequences and costs. The cost of a false-positive error is that you become paranoid. You are always looking around and behind your back for predators and enemies that don’t exist. The cost of a false-negative error is that you are dead, being killed by a predator or an enemy when you least expect them. Obviously, it’s better to be paranoid than dead, so evolution should have designed a mind that _overinfers_ personal, animate, and intentional forces even when none exist.

Different theorists call this innate human tendency to commit false-positive errors rather than false-negative errors (and as a consequence be a bit paranoid) “animistic bias” or “the agency-detector mechanism.” These theorists argue that the evolutionary origins of religious beliefs in supernatural forces may have come from such an innate cognitive bias to commit false-positive errors rather than false-negative errors, and thus _overinfer_personal, intentional, and animate forces behind otherwise perfectly natural phenomena.

You see a bush on fire. It could have been caused by an impersonal, inanimate, and unintentional force (lightning striking the bush and setting it on fire), or it could have been caused by a personal, animate, and intentional force (God trying to communicate with you). The “animistic bias” or “agency-detector mechanism” predisposes you to opt for the latter explanation rather than the former. It predisposes you to see the hands of God at work behind natural, physical phenomena whose exact causes are unknown.

In this view, religiosity (the human capacity for belief in supernatural beings) is not an evolved tendency per se; after all, religion in itself is not adaptive. It is instead a _byproduct_of animistic bias or the agency-detector mechanism, the tendency to be paranoid, which _is_adaptive because it can save your life. Humans did not evolve to be religious; they evolved to be paranoid. And humans are religious because they are paranoid.

Some readers may recognize this argument as a variant of “Pascal’s wager.” The seventeenth-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) argued that given that one cannot know for sure if God exists, it is nonetheless rational to believe in God. If one does not believe in God when He indeed exists (false-negative error), one must spend eternity in hell and damnation, whereas if one believes in God when he actually does not exist (false-positive error), one only wastes a minimal amount of time and effort spent on religious services. The cost of committing the false-negative error is much greater than the cost of committing the false-positive error. Hence one should rationally believe in God.

However, Pascal cannot explain why men always come on to women, whereas Haselton and Nettle can. The intriguing suggestion here is that we may believe in God and the supernatural forces for the same reasons that men overinfer women’s sexual interest in them and make unwelcome passes at them all the time. Both religious beliefs and sexual miscommunication between the sexes may be consequences of the human braindesigned for efficient error management, to minimize the total costs (rather than the total numbers) of errors. We may believe in God for the same reason that women have to keep slapping Beavis and Butt-head to set them straight.


----------



## sealybobo

ChrisL said:


> *1.  Indoctrination into Religion*
> 
> Is it coincidence that people tend to stay with whatever religion they were raised in, and this religion tends to be whatever religion is dominant in the community/nation where they live? If people were genuinely convinced by the arguments which apologists offered, shouldn't the distribution of religions around the globe be a bit more even?
> 
> The high and consistent degree of religious concentrations suggests that people believe their religion because that's the one they were indoctrinated into and which is consistently reinforced around them. People acquire a religion before critical thinking skills and that religion is promoted without most people noticing. That's really not a very good reason to believe that a religion is true, is it?
> 
> 
> *2.  Indoctrination into Anti-Atheist Bigotry*
> If you keep being told that people who don't believe in your god are evil, immoral, and a threat to the stable social order, then you would never dream of dropping your theistic religion. Who wants to be immoral or simply regarded by the rest of society as immoral? This is very much what atheists face, especially in America, and it's hard not to see theconstant indoctrination into anti-atheist bigotry as a reason why people stick to their religions. Children learn in public schools that America is a nation for people who believe in God and this message is reinforced throughout their lives by preachers, politicians, and community leaders of all sorts.
> 
> *3.  Peer and Family Pressure*
> Religion can be enormously important to families and communities, creating a tremendous amount of pressure to conform to religious expectations. People who step outside those expectations are not simply choosing a different way of life, but can in fact be perceived as rejecting one of the most important bonds which keep a family or community together. Even if this is never communicated in so many words, people do learn that certain ideas, ideologies, and practices should be treated as vital to communal bonds and should therefore not be questioned. The role of peer pressure and familial pressure in maintaining at least a veneer of religiosity for many people cannot be denied.
> 
> *4.  Fear of Death*
> Many religious theists try to argue atheists into believing in a god through the fear of what will happen after dying — either going to hell or simply ceasing to exist. This arguably reveals something very important about the believers themselves: they, too, must fear death as the cessation of existence and believe not because there are any good reasons to think there is an afterlife, but rather out of wishful thinking. People don't want to think that physical death is the end of all experiences, emotions, and thoughts so they insist on believing that somehow their "mind" will continue to exist without any physical brain in an eternity of sustained bliss — or even will be reincarnated in a new form.
> 
> *5.  Wishful Thinking*
> The wish that physical death isn't the end of life probably isn't the only example of wishful thinking behind religious and theistic belief. There are a number of other ways in which people profess beliefs that appear to be more about what they wish were true than what they can support through good evidence and logic. Many Christians, for example, seem to wish quite strongly that there exists a place of eternal punishment awaiting all those who dare to deny them political and cultural dominion in America. Many conservative believers from many religions seem to wish that there is a god which wants them to exercise unchecked power over women and minorities.
> 
> *6.  Fear of Freedom and Responsibility*
> One of the most disturbing aspects of many people's religious beliefs is the manner in which these beliefs make it possible for believers to avoid taking personal responsibility for what's going on. They don't have to be responsible for ensuring that justice is done because God will provide that. They don't have to be responsible for solving environmental problems because God will do that. They don't have to be responsible for developing strong moral rules because God has done that. They don't have to be responsible for developing sound arguments in defense of their positions because God has done that. Believers deny their own freedom because freedom means responsibility and responsibility means that if we fail, no one will rescue us.
> 
> *7.  Lack of Basic Skills in Logic and Reasoning*
> Most people don't learn nearly as much about logic, reason, and constructing sound arguments as they should. Even so, the quality of arguments typically offered by believers as justification for their religious and theistic beliefs are remarkable for just how atrocious they are. If only one basic logical fallacy is committed, it can be considered an achievement. Given how important believers claim the existence of their god and truth of their religion are, you'd think that they would invest a lot of effort into constructing the best possible arguments and finding the best possible evidence. Instead, they invest a lot of effort into constructing circular rationalizations and finding anything that sounds even remotely plausible.


Let's see boss challenge all that, but watch him try


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> *1.  Indoctrination into Atheism *
> *2.  Indoctrination into Anti-Xxxxxxx Bigotry*
> *3.  Peer and Family Pressure*
> *4.  Fear of Death*
> *5.  Wishful Thinking*
> *6.  Fear of Freedom and Responsibility*
> *7.  Lack of Basic Skills in Logic and Reasoning ... *



Alternative for this atheistic lifestyle?

Where do you see a real difference between religious people, antireligous people like lots of mindmanipulating atheists or godless liars in the name of god? What's worthful in your eyes?


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1.  Indoctrination into Atheism *
> *2.  Indoctrination into Anti-Xxxxxxx Bigotry*
> *3.  Peer and Family Pressure*
> *4.  Fear of Death*
> *5.  Wishful Thinking*
> *6.  Fear of Freedom and Responsibility*
> *7.  Lack of Basic Skills in Logic and Reasoning ... *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternative for this atheistic lifestyle?
> 
> Where do you see a real difference between religious people, antireligous people like lots of mindmanipulating atheists or godless liars in the name of god? What's worthful in your eyes?
Click to expand...


I see atheists/agnostics as being truthful and religious people as being paranoid and frightened little sheep.


----------



## there4eyeM

Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.


----------



## ChrisL

there4eyeM said:


> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.



I find all kinds of things wondrous.  Doesn't have to do anything with superstitious beliefs though.  For example, I find history to be fascinating and wondrous and I would love to visit some historical sites around the world some day.  I also find the universe and how it was created and how vast it is to be wondrous, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that some "entity" created it all.


----------



## LittleNipper

zaangalewa said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a victim? Something about the story has escaped you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a victim of death penalty.
Click to expand...

Jesus gave up his life, no one took it from Him. John 10:17-18 *17*“For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. *18*“No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”


----------



## LittleNipper

ChrisL said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find all kinds of things wondrous.  Doesn't have to do anything with superstitious beliefs though.  For example, I find history to be fascinating and wondrous and I would love to visit some historical sites around the world some day.  I also find the universe and how it was created and how vast it is to be wondrous, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that some "entity" created it all.
Click to expand...

So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?


----------



## there4eyeM

Because questions can be syntactically formed does not make them constructive or meaningful. When it is considered how long people have asked why we live without finding a satisfying answer, we might wonder if that it is the wrong question. And in fact, if 'God' exists there are many things we cannot know unless they are revealed.
As for the last question, it does have an answer. One knows through one's consciousness. That is the only thing of which we can be certain exists.


----------



## LittleNipper

there4eyeM said:


> Because questions can be syntactically formed does not make them constructive or meaningful. When it is considered how long people have asked why we live without finding a satisfying answer, we might wonder if that it is the wrong question. And in fact, if 'God' exists there are many things we cannot know unless they are revealed.
> As for the last question, it does have an answer. One knows through one's consciousness. That is the only thing of which we can be certain exists.


I know the answers to the questions; however, it involves God and His revelation through His Word and experiences among both those who love God and those who reject God... Just because there are people who cannot accept such answers doesn't mean that not having a clue is valid.


----------



## ChrisL

LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find all kinds of things wondrous.  Doesn't have to do anything with superstitious beliefs though.  For example, I find history to be fascinating and wondrous and I would love to visit some historical sites around the world some day.  I also find the universe and how it was created and how vast it is to be wondrous, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that some "entity" created it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?
Click to expand...


Oh my "god."    Go back to grade school and learn about evolution, will ya?


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1.  Indoctrination into Atheism *
> *2.  Indoctrination into Anti-Xxxxxxx Bigotry*
> *3.  Peer and Family Pressure*
> *4.  Fear of Death*
> *5.  Wishful Thinking*
> *6.  Fear of Freedom and Responsibility*
> *7.  Lack of Basic Skills in Logic and Reasoning ... *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternative for this atheistic lifestyle?
> 
> Where do you see a real difference between religious people, antireligous people like lots of mindmanipulating atheists or godless liars in the name of god? What's worthful in your eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see atheists/agnostics as being truthful and religious people as being paranoid and frightened little sheep.
Click to expand...


And I don't see why the only possible result of the two possible results of the philosophy agnosticism should be the belief in atheism. And I would also say not every atheist is like Mr. Feynman. But okay - who cares about what paranoid and frigthened sheep say?


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.



... dogma ~= doctrine ~= theory ...


----------



## ChrisL

zaangalewa said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... dogma ~= doctrine ~= theory ...
Click to expand...


You don't make much sense, TBH.  You are definitely brainwashed and in denial.  You are going to live out your entire life without even questioning the "book" that some old men wrote thousands of years ago.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
Click to expand...


 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.
*3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.

One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.

This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:





 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> They are ridiculous.  Does anyone really believe that Noah built an ark and had two of each animal on it?  What did they eat?  Lol.  I'm sorry but your bible stories just do not add up when you use any kind of logic.



Not logic.  Science.  And we will have Ark Encounter coming soon to answer all your questions.  Truth is stranger than fiction.

Ken Ham's Ark Encounter Takes Shape in Aerial Video Ahead of 40 Days, 40 Nights Opening


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
> 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.*
> 3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.
> 
> One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.
> 
> This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
> 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.
Click to expand...

.1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.


----------



## Militants

Maybe planet earth are stone in land then water in sea.


----------



## ChrisL

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
> 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.*
> 3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.
> 
> One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.
> 
> This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
> 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Ten logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
> 2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
> 3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out be science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
> 4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
> The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
Click to expand...


I cannot believe that some people actually believe the earth is only 6000 years old.  Lol.  Too funny.


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... dogma ~= doctrine ~= theory ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't make much sense, TBH.  You are definitely brainwashed and in denial.  You are going to live out your entire life without even questioning the "book" that some old men wrote thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...


Euclid - old or not - wrote a kind of bible for mathematics some thousand years ago. What he did not know was for example: the world is flat - the universe follows his geometry, the geometry of Euclid. It could follow also other geometries - but indeed the sum of the angle of a triangle are always 180° - even if the trianangle has a size of thousands of lightyears.

So before I said this to you, you knew noting about what I think in this for you not existing question. You know just simple nearly nothing about what I think, feel and believe - but you live in the illusion to know. You live also  in illusions like to know enough for example about biblical stories and characters - for example my grandafther: the singing king David. And indeed you don't need to know anything about me or David because you defined us to be your enemies. The only thing what someone needs to know about enemies is how to minimize their influence and how to kill them.

So if we speak together here you try to kill me (_"Who kills the gods of a tribe kills the tribe"_ ) while I try to save your soul by leading you to the truth. The first step to find the truth is to say "I don't know" and the second is to find out "how to know". This is for example the way of science. But sometimes we are not able to know and need other steps for other kinds of questions. Sometimes we will find questions, where we never will find an answer. Sometimes even quesions, where we never will be able to find an answer.  And somemtimes we have very important questions where no one has a good answer. Or do you know for example why my dog died last year? You did not even know that this is an important question?


----------



## zaangalewa

LittleNipper said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a victim? Something about the story has escaped you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a victim of death penalty.
> 
> [
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a victim? Something about the story has escaped you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus was a victim of death penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus gave up his life, no one took it from Him. John 10:17-18 *17*“For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. *18*“No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MEDIA=youtube]SZFNjsVmMgE[/MEDIA]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus gave up his life, no one took it from Him.
Click to expand...


Please. Don't speak bullshit. They crucified him and rammed a lance into his body to kill him.



> John 10:17-18 *17*“For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. *18*“No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”



He came back from death - that's why they were not able to take his life. But this justifies nothing what anyone did when they misused the system of human justice to kill the son of man who was the son of god too.

Still today lots of people are creating systems of pseudojustice or are misusing in perverted ways good laws of justice for torture and to kill human beings - while lots of people think what the authorities are doing is worthful. "_Right or wrong, my country_" No !!! No !!! No !!! It's good to do the right things and it's a shame to do what's wrong. The most easy and clear thoughts are often perverted in the craziest ways. When god came to the world they crucified him. Who expects something else - who expects god is a kind a pharao with godly mights like an showeffect - is crazy. No - he dies with us. He is together with us also in our deepest suffer, our worst situations, our most helpless and hopeless moments.

We don't have the illusion any longer who's the pharao is a good guy. And if we live this illusion then the next Hitler walks smiling and laughing through the next door. What for heavens sake do you think Jesus died for? To give everyone who is mighty the allowness to kill whomever he likes to kill - or did he came to tear the blindness of our eyes and to show to us what we are doing if we don't take care and do what's wrong? How often died Jesus together with prisoners in how many death camps of the world? And how often died we - died you, died I - together with someone else? We are blabbers in a blabber world. Don't make yourselve nor anyone else to a god. Don't make laws to a god. Don't make the bible to a god. Make nothing to a god what is not god. Specially never never never make an ugly death to a god. Human being are creating the crosses of this world here. God created the [re]surrection. God is life. God is love.


----------



## there4eyeM

Your doctrine contradicts the words of Jesus. See John 10:18.


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> Your doctrine contradicts the words of Jesus. See John 10:18.



You answered before I was ready to read what I wrote. This shows thinkless automatisms. Specially: I don't have any doctrine. And I do not live in fear of god. If "god" fights against life then I will fight against "god". Only god is god. And god is life. God is love. God is truth. It was not god who killed Jesus - it were human beings who killed Jesus. I don't accept your cheap excuse.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Let's see boss challenge all that, but watch him try



I don't need to challenge anything. I am not a religious person, I am a spiritualist. Religions are man-made constructs which demonstrate intrinsic human spiritual connection. It's man's way of coping, not with fear or death, but with his own spiritual awareness that he cannot deny. 

Now... You and Chris deny your spiritual awareness but there is an underlying reason. You've articulated that you disbelieve because of peer pressure. You weren't cool or hip, people thought you were a square because you believed in God.  So in order to feel like you're not such a total loser, you abandoned your spirituality. Now all the cool people like you and think you're alright. 

Chris, I strongly suspect, had an incident in her life where someone judged her or condemned her for something she did and she can't get over that. Her way of coping is to attack all things Christian. She comes here armed with atheist talking points, ready to do battle daily in her personal jihad. She has trained herself to believe there is no spirit or soul, that things like love are simply emotional and mean nothing, really. It's just a word people say when chemical shit happens in their brains... nothing else. 

Religion is a mixed bag. There are admirable religious people who are good and there are despicable religious people who are bad. However, people who disconnect spiritually have a giant hole they can never fill. They try to fill it by being promiscuous or drinking and doing drugs. They fill their lives with immoral and sick perversions, searching for something that is missing, something they can't ever seem to find. They tell their friends and family they are happy and things are fine, but they know deep down inside they are living a lie. Non-spiritual people suffer more from depression, commit suicide more often, become addicts of some kind and struggle with social and psychological disparity more than those who are spiritually-inclined... not by just a little bit, but nearly 10 to 1. 

Our spirituality plays such an important role in who we are as humans that world renown psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud once said... "If God didn't exist, man would have to invent Him." It's hard wired into our DNA. Now... that's not an endorsement for "God" of Abraham or the Bible, but rather, "God" in the generic sense of Spiritual Nature.  The "logic" of which, is very simple... Physical nature, by it's own laws and parameters of physics, cannot possibly have created itself. Something greater, therefore, must exist.


----------



## there4eyeM

Humans may have effected the end of Jesus' life, but he consciously delivered himself into the situation.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see boss challenge all that, but watch him try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to challenge anything. I am not a religious person, I am a spiritualist. Religions are man-made constructs which demonstrate intrinsic human spiritual connection. It's man's way of coping, not with fear or death, but with his own spiritual awareness that he cannot deny.
> 
> Now... You and Chris deny your spiritual awareness but there is an underlying reason. You've articulated that you disbelieve because of peer pressure. You weren't cool or hip, people thought you were a square because you believed in God.  So in order to feel like you're not such a total loser, you abandoned your spirituality. Now all the cool people like you and think you're alright.
> 
> Chris, I strongly suspect, had an incident in her life where someone judged her or condemned her for something she did and she can't get over that. Her way of coping is to attack all things Christian. She comes here armed with atheist talking points, ready to do battle daily in her personal jihad. She has trained herself to believe there is no spirit or soul, that things like love are simply emotional and mean nothing, really. It's just a word people say when chemical shit happens in their brains... nothing else.
> 
> Religion is a mixed bag. There are admirable religious people who are good and there are despicable religious people who are bad. However, people who disconnect spiritually have a giant hole they can never fill. They try to fill it by being promiscuous or drinking and doing drugs. They fill their lives with immoral and sick perversions, searching for something that is missing, something they can't ever seem to find. They tell their friends and family they are happy and things are fine, but they know deep down inside they are living a lie. Non-spiritual people suffer more from depression, commit suicide more often, become addicts of some kind and struggle with social and psychological disparity more than those who are spiritually-inclined... not by just a little bit, but nearly 10 to 1.
> 
> Our spirituality plays such an important role in who we are as humans that world renown psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud once said... "If God didn't exist, man would have to invent Him." It's hard wired into our DNA. Now... that's not an endorsement for "God" of Abraham or the Bible, but rather, "God" in the generic sense of Spiritual Nature.  The "logic" of which, is very simple... Physical nature, by it's own laws and parameters of physics, cannot possibly have created itself. Something greater, therefore, must exist.
Click to expand...

Same reason parents wait as long as possible before telling their kids there is no Santa. Sure, it'd be much nicer if I believed but I can't get myself to believe something I don't. And sure we'd be happier if we thought we had a God looking out for us. Who wouldn't? Or to think a heaven is waiting for us.

But I don't fill the hole with drinking because I have Christian friends who drink more than I do.

People who believe in God don't commit suicide because they think they'll go to hell.

Deep down we are living a lie? No. That's what we did back when we believed.

And trust me dude, I'm not missing anything other than church services.

And what is it you think you benefit from that me and Chris are missing by believing in generic God? You think that makes you a happier person? You'll say yes but deep down I doubt that.

And peer pressure isn't that important but it did help meeting other atheists who helped me realize I wasn't alone. The peer pressure comes from theists not atheists. The 1 atheist you refer to opened my eyes. I was still an atheist when I left his home. If I believed in God I wouldn't care what he said but he made a lot of sense.

I'm glad religion fills the huge gaping hole you just admitted your life would have if you didn't believe.


----------



## Dr Grump

LittleNipper said:


> So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?



Who knows? All I do know is that it is very, very unlikely some supernatural god is responsible.


----------



## sealybobo

Life


LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find all kinds of things wondrous.  Doesn't have to do anything with superstitious beliefs though.  For example, I find history to be fascinating and wondrous and I would love to visit some historical sites around the world some day.  I also find the universe and how it was created and how vast it is to be wondrous, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that some "entity" created it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?
Click to expand...

Life on our planet came from a star or stars that exploded billions of years ago. 
You exist because your parents had you. Why does a turtle exist?
I'm going to get a coffee
I'm here because my parents had me.

What are your answers to your own questions?


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> Humans may have effected the end of Jesus' life, but he consciously delivered himself into the situation.



Jesus Christ was a victim of death penalty. To say so is without any doubt true. If you don't take your time and don't like to think about then no one forces you or anyone else to do so. But to misuse Jesus - a victim of death penalty - for a political propaganda for death penalty is more than only disgusting.


----------



## there4eyeM

Choosing to reverse, inverse and totally misinterpret posts qualifies one to go unanswered. You do not understand. Perhaps because this is not your first language. If that is the case, you would be well advised not to engage in complex debates while lacking basic skills.


----------



## zaangalewa

there4eyeM said:


> Choosing to reverse, inverse and totally misinterpret posts qualifies one to go unanswered. You do not understand. Perhaps because this is not your first language. If that is the case, you would be well advised not to engage in complex debates while lacking basic skills.



Stop to try to tell me bullshit! Start to think! I don't have any problem if you need some time to find a good result for your intellectual problems. Anyway I don't expect answers within parts of seconds in everything what has to do with spirituality. When we discussed in Germany about this problem the most people were propagators of death penalty. But we gave our parlamentarians the order to decide this question only with the voice of their own conscience. The result was clear and the decision was always good.


----------



## ChrisL

there4eyeM said:


> Choosing to reverse, inverse and totally misinterpret posts qualifies one to go unanswered. You do not understand. Perhaps because this is not your first language. If that is the case, you would be well advised not to engage in complex debates while lacking basic skills.



What would you expect?  That is all they have left!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see boss challenge all that, but watch him try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to challenge anything. I am not a religious person, I am a spiritualist. Religions are man-made constructs which demonstrate intrinsic human spiritual connection. It's man's way of coping, not with fear or death, but with his own spiritual awareness that he cannot deny.
> 
> Now... You and Chris deny your spiritual awareness but there is an underlying reason. You've articulated that you disbelieve because of peer pressure. You weren't cool or hip, people thought you were a square because you believed in God.  So in order to feel like you're not such a total loser, you abandoned your spirituality. Now all the cool people like you and think you're alright.
> 
> Chris, I strongly suspect, had an incident in her life where someone judged her or condemned her for something she did and she can't get over that. Her way of coping is to attack all things Christian. She comes here armed with atheist talking points, ready to do battle daily in her personal jihad. She has trained herself to believe there is no spirit or soul, that things like love are simply emotional and mean nothing, really. It's just a word people say when chemical shit happens in their brains... nothing else.
> 
> Religion is a mixed bag. There are admirable religious people who are good and there are despicable religious people who are bad. However, people who disconnect spiritually have a giant hole they can never fill. They try to fill it by being promiscuous or drinking and doing drugs. They fill their lives with immoral and sick perversions, searching for something that is missing, something they can't ever seem to find. They tell their friends and family they are happy and things are fine, but they know deep down inside they are living a lie. Non-spiritual people suffer more from depression, commit suicide more often, become addicts of some kind and struggle with social and psychological disparity more than those who are spiritually-inclined... not by just a little bit, but nearly 10 to 1.
> 
> Our spirituality plays such an important role in who we are as humans that world renown psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud once said... "If God didn't exist, man would have to invent Him." It's hard wired into our DNA. Now... that's not an endorsement for "God" of Abraham or the Bible, but rather, "God" in the generic sense of Spiritual Nature.  The "logic" of which, is very simple... Physical nature, by it's own laws and parameters of physics, cannot possibly have created itself. Something greater, therefore, must exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason parents wait as long as possible before telling their kids there is no Santa. Sure, it'd be much nicer if I believed but I can't get myself to believe something I don't. And sure we'd be happier if we thought we had a God looking out for us. Who wouldn't? Or to think a heaven is waiting for us.
> 
> But I don't fill the hole with drinking because I have Christian friends who drink more than I do.
> 
> People who believe in God don't commit suicide because they think they'll go to hell.
> 
> Deep down we are living a lie? No. That's what we did back when we believed.
> 
> And trust me dude, I'm not missing anything other than church services.
> 
> And what is it you think you benefit from that me and Chris are missing by believing in generic God? You think that makes you a happier person? You'll say yes but deep down I doubt that.
> 
> And peer pressure isn't that important but it did help meeting other atheists who helped me realize I wasn't alone. The peer pressure comes from theists not atheists. The 1 atheist you refer to opened my eyes. I was still an atheist when I left his home. If I believed in God I wouldn't care what he said but he made a lot of sense.
> 
> I'm glad religion fills the huge gaping hole you just admitted your life would have if you didn't believe.
Click to expand...


Again, this isn't about Christianity. I have often said, Atheists are sometimes bigger believers in God than some Christians. Some people use Christianity as a shield against criticism or moral judgement. They've convinced themselves they can live however they please as long as they claim to be Christian. They will walk right past a homeless mother and her children to enter a brothel and sleep with a prostitute. They'll get drunk as a skunk on Saturday night and be on the front pew Sunday morning. 

But the human intrinsic belief in a Spiritual God is not like Santa, who is incidentally based on a real person... a Saint, as a matter of fact. Our spiritual connection is undeniable and has been a part of humanity for as long as we have evidence of humanity existing. We cannot say the same for legends like Santa or even religions like Christianity. 

*And what is it you think you benefit from that me and Chris are missing by believing in generic God? You think that makes you a happier person? You'll say yes but deep down I doubt that.*

Well, because I used to not be very spiritual at all. I was raised in a religious family but my father was a complete hypocrite who lived anything BUT a Christian life. When I became a teenager, I completely rebelled and for a while, I guess you could say I was an Atheist. I drank, did drugs, was promiscuous... just a totally wicked person... and I thought I was happy as a lark. I didn't need no stinkin' God messing up my FUN!  

The problem was, I was never fulfilled as a person. There was something missing. I could never put my finger on it and seems like bad shit kept happening to me over and over. Relationships failed, things didn't go as planned, bad luck seemed to follow me like a big black cloud. For a long time, I chalked it up to "shit happens" and kept moving on. In 1986, I had a very traumatic personal experience which should have taken my life. There is no rational explanation for why I am still here. This gave me pause and caused me to slow down and think. What I discovered was life changing. It's not "in my head" and it's not "my imagination". You can believe that, and I am sure you do, but I know different.


----------



## james bond

ChrisL said:


> *1.  Indoctrination into Religion*
> 
> Is it coincidence that people tend to stay with whatever religion they were raised in, and this religion tends to be whatever religion is dominant in the community/nation where they live? If people were genuinely convinced by the arguments which apologists offered, shouldn't the distribution of religions around the globe be a bit more even?
> 
> The high and consistent degree of religious concentrations suggests that people believe their religion because that's the one they were indoctrinated into and which is consistently reinforced around them. People acquire a religion before critical thinking skills and that religion is promoted without most people noticing. That's really not a very good reason to believe that a religion is true, is it?
> 
> 
> *2.  Indoctrination into Anti-Atheist Bigotry*
> If you keep being told that people who don't believe in your god are evil, immoral, and a threat to the stable social order, then you would never dream of dropping your theistic religion. Who wants to be immoral or simply regarded by the rest of society as immoral? This is very much what atheists face, especially in America, and it's hard not to see theconstant indoctrination into anti-atheist bigotry as a reason why people stick to their religions. Children learn in public schools that America is a nation for people who believe in God and this message is reinforced throughout their lives by preachers, politicians, and community leaders of all sorts.
> 
> *3.  Peer and Family Pressure*
> Religion can be enormously important to families and communities, creating a tremendous amount of pressure to conform to religious expectations. People who step outside those expectations are not simply choosing a different way of life, but can in fact be perceived as rejecting one of the most important bonds which keep a family or community together. Even if this is never communicated in so many words, people do learn that certain ideas, ideologies, and practices should be treated as vital to communal bonds and should therefore not be questioned. The role of peer pressure and familial pressure in maintaining at least a veneer of religiosity for many people cannot be denied.
> 
> *4.  Fear of Death*
> Many religious theists try to argue atheists into believing in a god through the fear of what will happen after dying — either going to hell or simply ceasing to exist. This arguably reveals something very important about the believers themselves: they, too, must fear death as the cessation of existence and believe not because there are any good reasons to think there is an afterlife, but rather out of wishful thinking. People don't want to think that physical death is the end of all experiences, emotions, and thoughts so they insist on believing that somehow their "mind" will continue to exist without any physical brain in an eternity of sustained bliss — or even will be reincarnated in a new form.
> 
> *5.  Wishful Thinking*
> The wish that physical death isn't the end of life probably isn't the only example of wishful thinking behind religious and theistic belief. There are a number of other ways in which people profess beliefs that appear to be more about what they wish were true than what they can support through good evidence and logic. Many Christians, for example, seem to wish quite strongly that there exists a place of eternal punishment awaiting all those who dare to deny them political and cultural dominion in America. Many conservative believers from many religions seem to wish that there is a god which wants them to exercise unchecked power over women and minorities.
> 
> *6.  Fear of Freedom and Responsibility*
> One of the most disturbing aspects of many people's religious beliefs is the manner in which these beliefs make it possible for believers to avoid taking personal responsibility for what's going on. They don't have to be responsible for ensuring that justice is done because God will provide that. They don't have to be responsible for solving environmental problems because God will do that. They don't have to be responsible for developing strong moral rules because God has done that. They don't have to be responsible for developing sound arguments in defense of their positions because God has done that. Believers deny their own freedom because freedom means responsibility and responsibility means that if we fail, no one will rescue us.
> 
> *7.  Lack of Basic Skills in Logic and Reasoning*
> Most people don't learn nearly as much about logic, reason, and constructing sound arguments as they should. Even so, the quality of arguments typically offered by believers as justification for their religious and theistic beliefs are remarkable for just how atrocious they are. If only one basic logical fallacy is committed, it can be considered an achievement. Given how important believers claim the existence of their god and truth of their religion are, you'd think that they would invest a lot of effort into constructing the best possible arguments and finding the best possible evidence. Instead, they invest a lot of effort into constructing circular rationalizations and finding anything that sounds even remotely plausible.



Not theists, but people like yourselves.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
> 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.*
> 3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.
> 
> One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.
> 
> This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
> 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
> 2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
> 3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
> 4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
> The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
Click to expand...


 1.  Oh, that's what you meant.  LOL.  This has been answered by science and math.

The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation.  Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998).  If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas.  However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe.  This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.

Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away?  Please answer.  

Here is what I learned in school.  Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point.  This is what surveyors do.

What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away.  At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth.  This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes.  So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright?  This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.

So what's the problem?  The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem.  How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth?  Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter.  We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away.  It is the narrow triangle problem.

Are you following me?  You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms.  Just how do you do that?

 2.  I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference.  It sounds like circular reasoning.  The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago.  The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago.  When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?

.What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed.  Occam's razor.  

 3 and 4.  What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?


----------



## james bond

To help forkup, here's what "science" says about lightyear and age of our universe.  This is very sketchy science.  No one knows what happens to light at these great distances as we know that it is related to time.  I'm willing to bet a cyber beer that the distance to our closest star is wrong.  Science is usually wrong with their hypotheses.

What is a light year?


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Choosing to reverse, inverse and totally misinterpret posts qualifies one to go unanswered. You do not understand. Perhaps because this is not your first language. If that is the case, you would be well advised not to engage in complex debates while lacking basic skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you expect?  That is all they have left!
Click to expand...


What is "all" and who is "they" and what means "left"  in this egocentralized thought about the worlds all around you?


----------



## zaangalewa

ChrisL said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find all kinds of things wondrous.  Doesn't have to do anything with superstitious beliefs though.  For example, I find history to be fascinating and wondrous and I would love to visit some historical sites around the world some day.  I also find the universe and how it was created and how vast it is to be wondrous, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that some "entity" created it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my "god."    Go back to grade school and learn about evolution, will ya?
Click to expand...


LittleNipper

Short intermezzo and some dirty and quick explanations:

Q:Where did life originate?
A: The theory of evolution is able to say "in a first cell", because every lifeform has a common ancestor with every other lifeform. Saint Francis would say: "We are all brothers and sisters" like brother worm and sister bee for example.

Q: Why do you exist?
A: The theory of evolution is not able to give here an answer.

Q: Where are you going?
A: For the theory of evolution life is only able to exist in combination with death - while paradise and heaven are a place full of life without death.

Q: Why are you here?
A: The theory of evolution denies the existance of plans (teleology) in nature. The philosophy of the theory of evolution would say: We are on no special reason here in this world and we go a way without any definable end, except the end of the own life.

Q: How do you know this?
A: We know something in natural science because we agree on plausible reasons (in mathematics for example) or because we are able to ask the reality all around (for example in experiments). In biology for example we compare similiar structures and categorize this structures. For example we compare the hand of a Gorilla with the hand of a human being and try to find the common elements and the different elements. The more common elements and the less different elements the more is something like we are. A Gorilla is more similiar (near) - a bee and a worm are not so similiar (far).
The very big problem of the theory of evolution are the experiments in genetics because all lifeforms on our planet are using the same code for reproduction. Nature makes changes littlest step by littlest step. We make it ... I fear "crazy". I personally don't have the impression in the Eldorado "genetics"  is a good knowledge really existing. Sometimes I have in this context the imagination children are playing with fire in a dry barn full of dry straw surrounded from a dry world without exit.


----------



## Militants

Christ are cp injured.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
> 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.*
> 3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.
> 
> One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.
> 
> This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
> 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
> 2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
> 3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
> 4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
> The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Oh, that's what you meant.  LOL.  This has been answered by science and math.
> 
> The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation.  Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998).  If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas.  However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe.  This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.
> 
> Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away?  Please answer.
> 
> Here is what I learned in school.  Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point.  This is what surveyors do.
> 
> What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away.  At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth.  This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes.  So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright?  This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.
> 
> So what's the problem?  The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem.  How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth?  Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter.  We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away.  It is the narrow triangle problem.
> 
> Are you following me?  You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms.  Just how do you do that?
> 
> 2.  I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference.  It sounds like circular reasoning.  The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago.  The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago.  When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?
> 
> .What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed.  Occam's razor.
> 
> 3 and 4.  What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?
Click to expand...

1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
> 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.*
> 3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.
> 
> One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.
> 
> This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
> 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
> 2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
> 3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
> 4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
> The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Oh, that's what you meant.  LOL.  This has been answered by science and math.
> 
> The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation.  Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998).  If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas.  However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe.  This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.
> 
> Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away?  Please answer.
> 
> Here is what I learned in school.  Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point.  This is what surveyors do.
> 
> What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away.  At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth.  This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes.  So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright?  This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.
> 
> So what's the problem?  The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem.  How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth?  Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter.  We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away.  It is the narrow triangle problem.
> 
> Are you following me?  You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms.  Just how do you do that?
> 
> 2.  I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference.  It sounds like circular reasoning.  The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago.  The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago.  When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?
> 
> .What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed.  Occam's razor.
> 
> 3 and 4.  What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?
Click to expand...

As to 3 and 4. It shows that Archeoligical digs have turned up a clear record of progressivly more advanced homonid species. In the case of the latter homonids to the point of digging them up with tools next to it.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> To help forkup, here's what "science" says about lightyear and age of our universe.  This is very sketchy science.  No one knows what happens to light at these great distances as we know that it is related to time.  I'm willing to bet a cyber beer that the distance to our closest star is wrong.  Science is usually wrong with their hypotheses.
> 
> What is a light year?


Ok light has a measurable speed. A light year is the distance that light can travel in the course of a year. Pretty staightforward.If you know how many seconds there's in a year. And you know how far light travels in a second it's a simple multiplication. Where's the assumption here?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

MaryL said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. And what kick started GOD, smartypants?
Click to expand...


What part of my being a pantheist don't you understand?



MaryL said:


> There isn't an answer to ANY of this,...



Are you saying that science has to rely on miracles?



MaryL said:


> ...and what difference does it make?








It appear to make at least 112 pages worth of difference to some people.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
> 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.*
> 3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.
> 
> One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.
> 
> This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
> 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
> 2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
> 3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
> 4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
> The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Oh, that's what you meant.  LOL.  This has been answered by science and math.
> 
> The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation.  Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998).  If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas.  However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe.  This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.
> 
> Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away?  Please answer.
> 
> Here is what I learned in school.  Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point.  This is what surveyors do.
> 
> What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away.  At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth.  This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes.  So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright?  This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.
> 
> So what's the problem?  The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem.  How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth?  Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter.  We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away.  It is the narrow triangle problem.
> 
> Are you following me?  You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms.  Just how do you do that?
> 
> 2.  I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference.  It sounds like circular reasoning.  The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago.  The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago.  When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?
> 
> .What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed.  Occam's razor.
> 
> 3 and 4.  What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?
Click to expand...

We are just figuring out that most of the stars we see are in fact entire galaxys. The universe is that big and we are that small


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see boss challenge all that, but watch him try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to challenge anything. I am not a religious person, I am a spiritualist. Religions are man-made constructs which demonstrate intrinsic human spiritual connection. It's man's way of coping, not with fear or death, but with his own spiritual awareness that he cannot deny.
> 
> Now... You and Chris deny your spiritual awareness but there is an underlying reason. You've articulated that you disbelieve because of peer pressure. You weren't cool or hip, people thought you were a square because you believed in God.  So in order to feel like you're not such a total loser, you abandoned your spirituality. Now all the cool people like you and think you're alright.
> 
> Chris, I strongly suspect, had an incident in her life where someone judged her or condemned her for something she did and she can't get over that. Her way of coping is to attack all things Christian. She comes here armed with atheist talking points, ready to do battle daily in her personal jihad. She has trained herself to believe there is no spirit or soul, that things like love are simply emotional and mean nothing, really. It's just a word people say when chemical shit happens in their brains... nothing else.
> 
> Religion is a mixed bag. There are admirable religious people who are good and there are despicable religious people who are bad. However, people who disconnect spiritually have a giant hole they can never fill. They try to fill it by being promiscuous or drinking and doing drugs. They fill their lives with immoral and sick perversions, searching for something that is missing, something they can't ever seem to find. They tell their friends and family they are happy and things are fine, but they know deep down inside they are living a lie. Non-spiritual people suffer more from depression, commit suicide more often, become addicts of some kind and struggle with social and psychological disparity more than those who are spiritually-inclined... not by just a little bit, but nearly 10 to 1.
> 
> Our spirituality plays such an important role in who we are as humans that world renown psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud once said... "If God didn't exist, man would have to invent Him." It's hard wired into our DNA. Now... that's not an endorsement for "God" of Abraham or the Bible, but rather, "God" in the generic sense of Spiritual Nature.  The "logic" of which, is very simple... Physical nature, by it's own laws and parameters of physics, cannot possibly have created itself. Something greater, therefore, must exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason parents wait as long as possible before telling their kids there is no Santa. Sure, it'd be much nicer if I believed but I can't get myself to believe something I don't. And sure we'd be happier if we thought we had a God looking out for us. Who wouldn't? Or to think a heaven is waiting for us.
> 
> But I don't fill the hole with drinking because I have Christian friends who drink more than I do.
> 
> People who believe in God don't commit suicide because they think they'll go to hell.
> 
> Deep down we are living a lie? No. That's what we did back when we believed.
> 
> And trust me dude, I'm not missing anything other than church services.
> 
> And what is it you think you benefit from that me and Chris are missing by believing in generic God? You think that makes you a happier person? You'll say yes but deep down I doubt that.
> 
> And peer pressure isn't that important but it did help meeting other atheists who helped me realize I wasn't alone. The peer pressure comes from theists not atheists. The 1 atheist you refer to opened my eyes. I was still an atheist when I left his home. If I believed in God I wouldn't care what he said but he made a lot of sense.
> 
> I'm glad religion fills the huge gaping hole you just admitted your life would have if you didn't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this isn't about Christianity. I have often said, Atheists are sometimes bigger believers in God than some Christians. Some people use Christianity as a shield against criticism or moral judgement. They've convinced themselves they can live however they please as long as they claim to be Christian. They will walk right past a homeless mother and her children to enter a brothel and sleep with a prostitute. They'll get drunk as a skunk on Saturday night and be on the front pew Sunday morning.
> 
> But the human intrinsic belief in a Spiritual God is not like Santa, who is incidentally based on a real person... a Saint, as a matter of fact. Our spiritual connection is undeniable and has been a part of humanity for as long as we have evidence of humanity existing. We cannot say the same for legends like Santa or even religions like Christianity.
> 
> *And what is it you think you benefit from that me and Chris are missing by believing in generic God? You think that makes you a happier person? You'll say yes but deep down I doubt that.*
> 
> Well, because I used to not be very spiritual at all. I was raised in a religious family but my father was a complete hypocrite who lived anything BUT a Christian life. When I became a teenager, I completely rebelled and for a while, I guess you could say I was an Atheist. I drank, did drugs, was promiscuous... just a totally wicked person... and I thought I was happy as a lark. I didn't need no stinkin' God messing up my FUN!
> 
> The problem was, I was never fulfilled as a person. There was something missing. I could never put my finger on it and seems like bad shit kept happening to me over and over. Relationships failed, things didn't go as planned, bad luck seemed to follow me like a big black cloud. For a long time, I chalked it up to "shit happens" and kept moving on. In 1986, I had a very traumatic personal experience which should have taken my life. There is no rational explanation for why I am still here. This gave me pause and caused me to slow down and think. What I discovered was life changing. It's not "in my head" and it's not "my imagination". You can believe that, and I am sure you do, but I know different.
Click to expand...

You do know there are a lot of atheists that don't drink do drugs aren't promiscuous or wicked, right?

You weren't an atheist you were a wicked theist. Guilt got you.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You do know there are a lot of atheists that don't drink do drugs aren't promiscuous or wicked, right?
> 
> You weren't an atheist you were a wicked theist. Guilt got you.



I personally think you can be an atheist and also be spiritual. To me, "atheist" simply means "not theist" or "not religious". My very religious sister calls me her atheist brother. I don't consider myself an atheist because I do believe in a higher power... I'll even refer to that power as "God" sometimes.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know there are a lot of atheists that don't drink do drugs aren't promiscuous or wicked, right?
> 
> You weren't an atheist you were a wicked theist. Guilt got you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think you can be an atheist and also be spiritual. To me, "atheist" simply means "not theist" or "not religious". My very religious sister calls me her atheist brother. I don't consider myself an atheist because I do believe in a higher power... I'll even refer to that power as "God" sometimes.
Click to expand...

Yup. If it ain't Jesus it's atheist. But notice how you consider yourself one of them even tHough they disagree? Reminds me of gays who say they are Christians.

You tell that sister in law her religion is holding us back. You tell her it's how they control us. Tell her sealybobo said so


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> We are just figuring out that most of the stars we see are in fact entire galaxys. The universe is that big and we are that small



We're certainly not "just figuring that out" ...We've known this for the better part of the last century. Where we are at now is at the limits of our physical ability to measure the universe. It's not that we don't have the technology, it's the laws of nature.

Light travels at a constant speed, therefore, we can only see light as far back as 14.5 billion years. The universe may be larger but we can't see it because the light hasn't reached us yet. What's really crazy is, someone living in another part of our universe might be able to see parts of the universe we can never see. 

But.. YES... the universe is large on a scale that we can't even relate to. And we humans are infinitesimally small in comparison... but now, think about atoms and quarks and leptons and particles... things so small that we can't comprehend them-- yet they comprise everything physical that we know of.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know there are a lot of atheists that don't drink do drugs aren't promiscuous or wicked, right?
> 
> You weren't an atheist you were a wicked theist. Guilt got you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think you can be an atheist and also be spiritual. To me, "atheist" simply means "not theist" or "not religious". My very religious sister calls me her atheist brother. I don't consider myself an atheist because I do believe in a higher power... I'll even refer to that power as "God" sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. If it ain't Jesus it's atheist. But notice how you consider yourself one of them even tHough they disagree? Reminds me of gays who say they are Christians.
> 
> You tell that sister in law her religion is holding us back. You tell her it's how they control us. Tell her sealybobo said so
Click to expand...


I'm reminded of the Bob Dylan song... Serve Somebody... _you can be a sinner or you can be a saint but you gotta serve somebody!_


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> But notice how you consider yourself one of them even tHough they disagree?



I don't consider myself one of anyone. I am just me. I believe what I believe. I try to have respect for the spiritual views of others whether they are religious or not. We're all individuals who believe what we believe and I'm fine with that. If it helps you to have a Book with rules and a Boss who tells you what is acceptable, then so be it. As long as you don't start flying airplanes into buildings and sawing off people's heads, I'm cool with it.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know there are a lot of atheists that don't drink do drugs aren't promiscuous or wicked, right?
> 
> You weren't an atheist you were a wicked theist. Guilt got you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think you can be an atheist and also be spiritual. To me, "atheist" simply means "not theist" or "not religious". My very religious sister calls me her atheist brother. I don't consider myself an atheist because I do believe in a higher power... I'll even refer to that power as "God" sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. If it ain't Jesus it's atheist. But notice how you consider yourself one of them even tHough they disagree? Reminds me of gays who say they are Christians.
> 
> You tell that sister in law her religion is holding us back. You tell her it's how they control us. Tell her sealybobo said so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reminded of the Bob Dylan song... Serve Somebody... _you can be a sinner or you can be a saint but you gotta serve somebody!_
Click to expand...

And you know a small part of me believes that karma bullshit so even I'm spiritual. 

Imagine when paleo or mono or cro Magnum man first tapped into spirituality. I'm sure everything good was a gift and every bad thing a punishment. 

I don't think any of the modern religions will be around 1000 years from now. We're getting too smart too fast. But in 1000 years people will still be spiritual.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find all kinds of things wondrous.  Doesn't have to do anything with superstitious beliefs though.  For example, I find history to be fascinating and wondrous and I would love to visit some historical sites around the world some day.  I also find the universe and how it was created and how vast it is to be wondrous, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that some "entity" created it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my "god."    Go back to grade school and learn about evolution, will ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LittleNipper
> 
> Short intermezzo and some dirty and quick explanations:
> 
> Q:Where did life originate?
> A: The theory of evolution is able to say "in a first cell", because every lifeform has a common ancestor with every other lifeform. Saint Francis would say: "We are all brothers and sisters" like brother worm and sister bee for example.
> 
> Q: Why do you exist?
> A: The theory of evolution is not able to give here an answer.
> 
> Q: Where are you going?
> A: For the theory of evolution life is only able to exist in combination with death - while paradise and heaven are a place full of life without death.
> 
> Q: Why are you here?
> A: The theory of evolution denies the existance of plans (teleology) in nature. The philosophy of the theory of evolution would say: We are on no special reason here in this world and we go a way without any definable end, except the end of the own life.
> 
> Q: How do you know this?
> A: We know something in natural science because we agree on plausible reasons (in mathematics for example) or because we are able to ask the reality all around (for example in experiments). In biology for example we compare similiar structures and categorize this structures. For example we compare the hand of a Gorilla with the hand of a human being and try to find the common elements and the different elements. The more common elements and the less different elements the more is something like we are. A Gorilla is more similiar (near) - a bee and a worm are not so similiar (far).
> The very big problem of the theory of evolution are the experiments in genetics because all lifeforms on our planet are using the same code for reproduction. Nature makes changes littlest step by littlest step. We make it ... I fear "crazy". I personally don't have the impression in the Eldorado "genetics"  is a good knowledge really existing. Sometimes I have in this context the imagination children are playing with fire in a dry barn full of dry straw surrounded from a dry world without exit.
Click to expand...


Fatal flaw in the ToE because it's hypotheses.  Life did not originate from a first cell or else we would be seeing this happen all around us just from one cell.  This is not testable experimentally either.  One can't even make protein from all the amino acids found in space, and it won't happen even if you can wait millions of years.
.
.
.







To change the subject a bit, I saw Batman v Superman:  Dawn of Justice tonight and after the movie checked out an artist named Cleon Peterson.  His street artist art was hanging in the museum used for Lex Luther's party.  Peterson uses Graeco-Roman vase style drawings depicting violence and brutality in basic black and white colors and sometimes red.  It is remarkable how much he is able to express just using those colors.  He says, "“I call these guys the shadows.  It kind of represents the dark side of all of us.”  His art depicts a world in which violence exists without context.  And he’s not afraid to show the uglier side of humanity.  He continues, “That world is today. People today, in the US especially, have become non-participatory as far as what’s going on in the world. Yes, we see violence and war in the media but people don’t feel like it’s your life – or has anything to do with you, but of course we are very much part of it.”  It's why we need the death penalty.

Cleon Peterson


----------



## Militants

Why I blamed Christ because ones do eat silence when I eat food and that make me agnry about he or she far away and I've hate Swedish God in forum so I can't believe on Swedish God. My voices trouble is bigger than a tornado in United. My voices don't like me outside my old friend so they're voices in my brain but I like outside my gangsta friend they allways believe that negro are bigger strenght than all white in United States. That's nothing truth.


----------



## hobelim

Militants said:


> Why I blamed Christ because ones do eat silence when I eat food and that make me agnry about he or she far away and I've hate Swedish God in forum so I can't believe on Swedish God. My voices trouble is bigger than a tornado in United. My voices don't like me outside my old friend so they're voices in my brain but I like outside my gangsta friend they allways believe that negro are bigger strenght than all white in United States. That's nothing truth.




Did the voices in your brain tell you to kill your friend's dog?


----------



## Militants

hobelim said:


> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I blamed Christ because ones do eat silence when I eat food and that make me agnry about he or she far away and I've hate Swedish God in forum so I can't believe on Swedish God. My voices trouble is bigger than a tornado in United. My voices don't like me outside my old friend so they're voices in my brain but I like outside my gangsta friend they allways believe that negro are bigger strenght than all white in United States. That's nothing truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the voices in your brain tell you to kill your friend's dog?
Click to expand...


Wasn't good but it was before my voices calling on me.


----------



## hobelim

Militants said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I blamed Christ because ones do eat silence when I eat food and that make me agnry about he or she far away and I've hate Swedish God in forum so I can't believe on Swedish God. My voices trouble is bigger than a tornado in United. My voices don't like me outside my old friend so they're voices in my brain but I like outside my gangsta friend they allways believe that negro are bigger strenght than all white in United States. That's nothing truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the voices in your brain tell you to kill your friend's dog?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't good but it was before my voices calling on me.
Click to expand...



I understand.  you said that you did it because you wanted to live.

What do the voices tell you?


----------



## Militants

hobelim said:


> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I blamed Christ because ones do eat silence when I eat food and that make me agnry about he or she far away and I've hate Swedish God in forum so I can't believe on Swedish God. My voices trouble is bigger than a tornado in United. My voices don't like me outside my old friend so they're voices in my brain but I like outside my gangsta friend they allways believe that negro are bigger strenght than all white in United States. That's nothing truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the voices in your brain tell you to kill your friend's dog?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't good but it was before my voices calling on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  you said that you did it because you wanted to live.
> 
> What do the voices tell you?
Click to expand...


Yes, I will living life.

They breath through how is togh for me.

Then they eating through how does no helps to change places.

And they know everything far away when I relax to hard rock.

And they will hurt me in fight but that doesn't help far away.


----------



## hobelim

Militants said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I blamed Christ because ones do eat silence when I eat food and that make me agnry about he or she far away and I've hate Swedish God in forum so I can't believe on Swedish God. My voices trouble is bigger than a tornado in United. My voices don't like me outside my old friend so they're voices in my brain but I like outside my gangsta friend they allways believe that negro are bigger strenght than all white in United States. That's nothing truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the voices in your brain tell you to kill your friend's dog?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't good but it was before my voices calling on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  you said that you did it because you wanted to live.
> 
> What do the voices tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I will living life.
> 
> They breath through how is togh for me.
> 
> Then they eating through how does no helps to change places.
> 
> And they know everything far away when I relax to hard rock.
> 
> And they will hurt me in fight but that doesn't help far away.
Click to expand...



You fight the voices?

How do they hurt you?


----------



## Militants

hobelim said:


> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I blamed Christ because ones do eat silence when I eat food and that make me agnry about he or she far away and I've hate Swedish God in forum so I can't believe on Swedish God. My voices trouble is bigger than a tornado in United. My voices don't like me outside my old friend so they're voices in my brain but I like outside my gangsta friend they allways believe that negro are bigger strenght than all white in United States. That's nothing truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the voices in your brain tell you to kill your friend's dog?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't good but it was before my voices calling on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  you said that you did it because you wanted to live.
> 
> What do the voices tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I will living life.
> 
> They breath through how is togh for me.
> 
> Then they eating through how does no helps to change places.
> 
> And they know everything far away when I relax to hard rock.
> 
> And they will hurt me in fight but that doesn't help far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fight the voices?
> 
> How do they hurt you?
Click to expand...


They can't fight me.

They are disapointed outside my old friend from Iraq.

Abdul have strange feelings about my father and uncle.

He speak like them but in outlandish no in Finnish.

Mr Abdul was irritation about two old Finn Nazism.

I never tell mr Abdul about my fathers side.

Abdul are against Nazism but not me. 

My father and he's brother hate black humans.

White are stronger than black in world.


----------



## hobelim

Militants said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the voices in your brain tell you to kill your friend's dog?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't good but it was before my voices calling on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  you said that you did it because you wanted to live.
> 
> What do the voices tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I will living life.
> 
> They breath through how is togh for me.
> 
> Then they eating through how does no helps to change places.
> 
> And they know everything far away when I relax to hard rock.
> 
> And they will hurt me in fight but that doesn't help far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fight the voices?
> 
> How do they hurt you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't fight me.
> 
> They are disapointed outside my old friend from Iraq.
> 
> Abdul have strange feelings about my father and uncle.
> 
> He speak like them but in outlandish no in Finnish.
> 
> Mr Abdul was irritation about two old Finn Nazism.
> 
> I never tell mr Abdul about my fathers side.
> 
> Abdul are against Nazism but not me.
> 
> My father and he's brother hate black humans.
> 
> White are stronger than black in world.
Click to expand...



How do the voices hurt you?


Do you have any friends now who know about the trouble that you are having with the voices?


----------



## Militants

They hurt me from distance with breath through and eating my food this they hurt me.

My old friends doesn't will know about my voices problem.

Abduls gang members will fight all Nazism. Even though they may live in Sweden, they want to fight each nazi they come close. Cheating Rules of the municipal council. They are like negrous in United they will fight against Nazism.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sensing the universe and the wonder of it does not require dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find all kinds of things wondrous.  Doesn't have to do anything with superstitious beliefs though.  For example, I find history to be fascinating and wondrous and I would love to visit some historical sites around the world some day.  I also find the universe and how it was created and how vast it is to be wondrous, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that some "entity" created it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my "god."    Go back to grade school and learn about evolution, will ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LittleNipper
> 
> Short intermezzo and some dirty and quick explanations:
> 
> Q:Where did life originate?
> A: The theory of evolution is able to say "in a first cell", because every lifeform has a common ancestor with every other lifeform. Saint Francis would say: "We are all brothers and sisters" like brother worm and sister bee for example.
> 
> Q: Why do you exist?
> A: The theory of evolution is not able to give here an answer.
> 
> Q: Where are you going?
> A: For the theory of evolution life is only able to exist in combination with death - while paradise and heaven are a place full of life without death.
> 
> Q: Why are you here?
> A: The theory of evolution denies the existance of plans (teleology) in nature. The philosophy of the theory of evolution would say: We are on no special reason here in this world and we go a way without any definable end, except the end of the own life.
> 
> Q: How do you know this?
> A: We know something in natural science because we agree on plausible reasons (in mathematics for example) or because we are able to ask the reality all around (for example in experiments). In biology for example we compare similiar structures and categorize this structures. For example we compare the hand of a Gorilla with the hand of a human being and try to find the common elements and the different elements. The more common elements and the less different elements the more is something like we are. A Gorilla is more similiar (near) - a bee and a worm are not so similiar (far).
> The very big problem of the theory of evolution are the experiments in genetics because all lifeforms on our planet are using the same code for reproduction. Nature makes changes littlest step by littlest step. We make it ... I fear "crazy". I personally don't have the impression in the Eldorado "genetics"  is a good knowledge really existing. Sometimes I have in this context the imagination children are playing with fire in a dry barn full of dry straw surrounded from a dry world without exit.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fatal flaw in the ToE
Click to expand...


TOE Theory of Everything
TOE TCP/IP Offload Engine
TOE Table of Elements
TOE Tales of Eternia (game)
TOE Term of Enlistment
TOE Transesophageal Echocardiogram
TOE Tonne of Oil Equivalent
TOE Telephone Outage Emergency (Emergency Alert System Code)
TOE Total Ownership Experience
TOE Time of Event
TOE Table of Organization & Equipment
TOE Total Operating Expense(s)
TOE Task, Object, Event (computer programming)
TOE Threaded One End
TOE Test of Effectiveness (Sarbanes-Oxley compliance)
TOE Target Operating Environment
TOE Timing-Offset Estimation
TOE Trial of Entrance (gaming clan recruitment)
TOE Troops, Organization & Equipment
TOE Time Operating Efficiency
TOE Tri Ocean Engineering
TOE Training on Errors (machine learning)
TOE Technical Operations Expert
TOE Transfer of Equity (finance)
TOE Theory of Evolution
TOE Through Other Eyes (UK)
TOE Target of Evaluation

Guess I got it. So you said something like: "Verhängnisvoll fehlerbehaftet im Sinne des zu evaluierenden Zieles".



> because it's hypotheses.



Give me the exact words of this what you think what the hypothese is.



> Life did not originate from a first cell



That's the only solution if every living multi-cellular organism has with every other multi-cellular organism a common ancestor. If you have a better solution say it. (Don't forget: What came before the first living cell is not part of biology but part of chemistry)



> or else we would be seeing this happen all around us just from one cell. This is not testable experimentally either.



The experiment in this case we call "fossils" and "pedigress". Physics is using methods of physics. Biology is using methods of biology. If we could explain biology only with methods of physics it would be physics. The hierarchy is: physics -> chemistry -> biology.



> One can't even make protein from all the amino acids found in space, and it won't happen even if you can wait millions of years.
> .
> .
> .



It happened.



> To change the subject a bit, I saw Batman v Superman:  Dawn of Justice tonight and after the movie checked out an artist named Cleon Peterson.



Batman and Superman are products of the spirit of artists. Cleon Peterson?



> His street artist art was hanging in the museum used for Lex Luther's party.  Peterson uses Graeco-Roman vase style drawings depicting violence and brutality in basic black and white colors



Black and white are the colors of the german knights. Graeco-roman vases are beautiful. Both I see positive.



> and sometimes red.










> It is remarkable how much he is able to express just using those colors.  He says, "“I call these guys the shadows.  It kind of represents the dark side of all of us.”



I don't know the context now but the backround black and white and the color red don't express agressions.



> His art depicts a world in which violence exists without context.  And he’s not afraid to show the uglier side of humanity.  He continues, “That world is today. People today, in the US especially, have become non-participatory as far as what’s going on in the world. Yes, we see violence and war in the media but people don’t feel like it’s your life – or has anything to do with you, but of course we are very much part of it.”  It's why we need the death penalty.
> 
> Cleon Peterson



No one needs death penalty.


----------



## Militants

In Sweden are nothing with Nationalsocialism rules but after poll 2018 or some early in 2017 there can be one Nationalsocialist Party if not really are one but nothing clear yet so we can kick back gangs in Sweden how will destroy for every nazi in Sweden even my town here is one gang with gangsta rules. Like negrous in United they are. But all Nazism in my town are not hurt's yet. I know my Finn slakt.


----------



## hobelim

Militants said:


> They hurt me from distance with breath through and eating my food this they hurt me.
> 
> My old friends doesn't will know about my voices problem.
> 
> Abduls gang members will fight all Nazism. Even though they may live in Sweden, they want to fight each nazi they come close. Cheating Rules of the municipal council. They are like negrous in United they will fight against Nazism.




Does anybody in Sweden know about your voices problem?


----------



## Militants

hobelim said:


> Militants said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hurt me from distance with breath through and eating my food this they hurt me.
> 
> My old friends doesn't will know about my voices problem.
> 
> Abduls gang members will fight all Nazism. Even though they may live in Sweden, they want to fight each nazi they come close. Cheating Rules of the municipal council. They are like negrous in United they will fight against Nazism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody in Sweden know about your voices problem?
Click to expand...


In mental house 2004 - 2006 they haves expert. 

Only my town as fooling. 

Maybe over 1000 pieces.

Maybe the Devil syndrome.


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> In Sweden are nothing with Nationalsocialism rules but after poll 2018 or some early in 2017 there can be one Nationalsocialist Party if not really are one but nothing clear yet so we can kick back gangs in Sweden how will destroy for every nazi in Sweden even my town here is one gang with gangsta rules. Like negrous in United they are. But all Nazism in my town are not hurt's yet. I know my Finn slakt.



So you are a native speaker of the language Suomi? ... Bishop Mikael Agricola a student from Martin Luther wrote the first bible in Suomi ... One Moment: your language uses postfixes. So you first say the most important word - and then you add suffixes. Word first - important is - suffixes describe this? Word - your language - is - question?: "talo" = "house"`? Means "taloissanikino"(= "talo-i-ssa-ni-kin-o"="House-s(plural)-in-my-also-question"=)"Also in my houses?"


Translation:  Finnish to English: Karelian Folk Music Ensemble - Tui Tui Tuomen Kukka


----------



## Militants

My first word was mother on Swedish then father=isa then one more closer to 3 year old. Then my Finnish breaks down. Father drive back to Finland.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evos:  The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life.  Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
> 
> Not true.  Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death."  Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's _Principles of Geology_ (1830) and Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ (1859).
> 
> Evos:  The fossil record proves evolution is true.  For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
> 
> False.  If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted.  Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
> 
> Let's look at the layers. * Even their names are based on geography, not time.*
> 
> Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of.  There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
> 
> Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things.  This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
> 
> Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out.  Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed?  Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
> 
> To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there.  Is that because fish did not exist when
> Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?  Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
> 
> Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things.  The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
> 
> On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly.  Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
> 
> Geographic Names
> There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names.  For example,
> 
> The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
> 
> The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
> 
> The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
> 
> Notice that each layer is associated with an age.  Why is that?  Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was.  Chronologically, the two names make no sense.  That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
> 
> More, as I get time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
> 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.*
> 3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.
> 
> One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.
> 
> This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
> 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
> 2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
> 3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
> 4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
> The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Oh, that's what you meant.  LOL.  This has been answered by science and math.
> 
> The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation.  Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998).  If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas.  However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe.  This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.
> 
> Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away?  Please answer.
> 
> Here is what I learned in school.  Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point.  This is what surveyors do.
> 
> What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away.  At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth.  This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes.  So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright?  This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.
> 
> So what's the problem?  The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem.  How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth?  Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter.  We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away.  It is the narrow triangle problem.
> 
> Are you following me?  You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms.  Just how do you do that?
> 
> 2.  I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference.  It sounds like circular reasoning.  The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago.  The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago.  When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?
> 
> .What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed.  Occam's razor.
> 
> 3 and 4.  What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
> This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
> 2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
> 3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.
Click to expand...


1.  The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance.  When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet.  For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth.  All they could measure is length and width.  Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one.  There is the problem of spacetime.  I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology.  However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
2.  I didn't flip anything.  When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer.  Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating.  Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article.  If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us.  On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period.  If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded.  It is biased to say the least.  All of the results should be discarded.
3.  I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments.  The picture above showed 16 of them.  The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money.  Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side.  Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania.  This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago.  It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet.  The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors.  Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.






We can't compare her feet to the tracks found.  There are no foot bones!  Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.

Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man?  It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find all kinds of things wondrous.  Doesn't have to do anything with superstitious beliefs though.  For example, I find history to be fascinating and wondrous and I would love to visit some historical sites around the world some day.  I also find the universe and how it was created and how vast it is to be wondrous, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that some "entity" created it all.
> 
> 
> 
> So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my "god."    Go back to grade school and learn about evolution, will ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LittleNipper
> 
> Short intermezzo and some dirty and quick explanations:
> 
> Q:Where did life originate?
> A: The theory of evolution is able to say "in a first cell", because every lifeform has a common ancestor with every other lifeform. Saint Francis would say: "We are all brothers and sisters" like brother worm and sister bee for example.
> 
> Q: Why do you exist?
> A: The theory of evolution is not able to give here an answer.
> 
> Q: Where are you going?
> A: For the theory of evolution life is only able to exist in combination with death - while paradise and heaven are a place full of life without death.
> 
> Q: Why are you here?
> A: The theory of evolution denies the existance of plans (teleology) in nature. The philosophy of the theory of evolution would say: We are on no special reason here in this world and we go a way without any definable end, except the end of the own life.
> 
> Q: How do you know this?
> A: We know something in natural science because we agree on plausible reasons (in mathematics for example) or because we are able to ask the reality all around (for example in experiments). In biology for example we compare similiar structures and categorize this structures. For example we compare the hand of a Gorilla with the hand of a human being and try to find the common elements and the different elements. The more common elements and the less different elements the more is something like we are. A Gorilla is more similiar (near) - a bee and a worm are not so similiar (far).
> The very big problem of the theory of evolution are the experiments in genetics because all lifeforms on our planet are using the same code for reproduction. Nature makes changes littlest step by littlest step. We make it ... I fear "crazy". I personally don't have the impression in the Eldorado "genetics"  is a good knowledge really existing. Sometimes I have in this context the imagination children are playing with fire in a dry barn full of dry straw surrounded from a dry world without exit.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fatal flaw in the ToE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TOE Theory of Everything
> TOE TCP/IP Offload Engine
> TOE Table of Elements
> TOE Tales of Eternia (game)
> TOE Term of Enlistment
> TOE Transesophageal Echocardiogram
> TOE Tonne of Oil Equivalent
> TOE Telephone Outage Emergency (Emergency Alert System Code)
> TOE Total Ownership Experience
> TOE Time of Event
> TOE Table of Organization & Equipment
> TOE Total Operating Expense(s)
> TOE Task, Object, Event (computer programming)
> TOE Threaded One End
> TOE Test of Effectiveness (Sarbanes-Oxley compliance)
> TOE Target Operating Environment
> TOE Timing-Offset Estimation
> TOE Trial of Entrance (gaming clan recruitment)
> TOE Troops, Organization & Equipment
> TOE Time Operating Efficiency
> TOE Tri Ocean Engineering
> TOE Training on Errors (machine learning)
> TOE Technical Operations Expert
> TOE Transfer of Equity (finance)
> TOE Theory of Evolution
> TOE Through Other Eyes (UK)
> TOE Target of Evaluation
> 
> Guess I got it. So you said something like: "Verhängnisvoll fehlerbehaftet im Sinne des zu evaluierenden Zieles".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because it's hypotheses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me the exact words of this what you think what the hypothese is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life did not originate from a first cell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the only solution if every living multi-cellular organism has with every other multi-cellular organism a common ancestor. If you have a better solution say it. (Don't forget: What came before the first living cell is not part of biology but part of chemistry)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or else we would be seeing this happen all around us just from one cell. This is not testable experimentally either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The experiment in this case we call "fossils" and "pedigress". Physics is using methods of physics. Biology is using methods of biology. If we could explain biology only with methods of physics it would be physics. The hierarchy is: physics -> chemistry -> biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One can't even make protein from all the amino acids found in space, and it won't happen even if you can wait millions of years.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To change the subject a bit, I saw Batman v Superman:  Dawn of Justice tonight and after the movie checked out an artist named Cleon Peterson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Batman and Superman are products of the spirit of artists. Cleon Peterson?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His street artist art was hanging in the museum used for Lex Luther's party.  Peterson uses Graeco-Roman vase style drawings depicting violence and brutality in basic black and white colors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Black and white are the colors of the german knights. Graeco-roman vases are beautiful. Both I see positive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and sometimes red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is remarkable how much he is able to express just using those colors.  He says, "“I call these guys the shadows.  It kind of represents the dark side of all of us.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the context now but the backround black and white and the color red don't express agressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His art depicts a world in which violence exists without context.  And he’s not afraid to show the uglier side of humanity.  He continues, “That world is today. People today, in the US especially, have become non-participatory as far as what’s going on in the world. Yes, we see violence and war in the media but people don’t feel like it’s your life – or has anything to do with you, but of course we are very much part of it.”  It's why we need the death penalty.
> 
> Cleon Peterson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one needs death penalty.
Click to expand...


ToE = Theory of Evolution.  Did you get toe jammed?  It's your hypotheses.

I already gave you one "major" hypothesis using your single-cell remark.  You followed it up with an untruth.  To get from single to multiple cell organisms, then you need building blocks of protein.  Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed.  Do you see how great God is?  How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?  The creation scientists have already explained how this is impossible to have occurred.

...

If you look at Cleon Peterson's other works, he depicts these things happening in poorer neighborhoods.  That's where the red comes in.  The poor want and deserve justice and the death penalty for their suffering violence and brutality on a regular basis.


----------



## Boss

james bond said:


> To get from single to multiple cell organisms, then you need building blocks of protein.



You also need 27 amino acids and 40 enzymes specifically fitting the DNA mitochondria profile. The chance of one such amino acid randomly occurring is 10^180  ...that is a number greater than all the known atoms in the universe, or a mathematical impossibility.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> And you know a small part of me believes that karma bullshit so even I'm spiritual.
> 
> Imagine when paleo or mono or cro Magnum man first tapped into spirituality. I'm sure everything good was a gift and every bad thing a punishment.
> 
> I don't think any of the modern religions will be around 1000 years from now. We're getting too smart too fast. But in 1000 years people will still be spiritual.



Well a large part of you should believe the karma bullshit but you should simply define it as spiritual.  The same applies to love. Love is spiritual. Some will argue that love is an emotion triggered by chemical reactions in the brain but that is backward thinking. Chemical reactions in the brain are triggered by the spiritual recognition of love. 

I am glad you are now using phrases like "tapped into spirituality" as opposed to "invented" because that shows you've progressed in your thinking. You're beginning to understand that we could not have invented it and that's good on your part. The next thing I'd like you to focus on is this concept of "good" and "bad" and what that actually means. How did we come up with what is good and bad? 

You see... If I live in the jungle and I'm hungry, in need of food, and you have food... it's good for me to take your food even if I need to kill you to do so. Or if I have a family of offspring and you are in my territory, it might be good for me to eliminate the potential threat you pose by killing you. So what happened to change our primal instincts so dynamically and cause us to create a moral code of "good and bad" that persists to this day? 

Some will argue, well it was a mutually cooperative thing where we realized it was better to get along... but I don't buy that because it would have been just like today, some people would have adopted that idea and others would have rejected it. Screw that noise, I'll steal your food and kill you if I need to.... self preservation baby! When you accept spirituality the answer becomes more clear... We became aware of something greater than ourselves. 

Our spiritual connection guides us on a path toward good and away from evil. We are hard-wired with the conception of good and evil because we are spiritual creatures who make a spiritual connection to something beyond ourselves... a greater good.


----------



## zaangalewa

Militants said:


> My first word was mother on Swedish



mor, moder, mutter, mamma, mamsen or morsa?



> then father=isa then one more closer to 3 year old.



"Isä" is Suomi. Did you call your mother "mutteri"? - this would be as well Suomi and Swedish.



> Then my Finnish breaks down. Father drive back to Finland.



Okay - but maybe reality and imagination are the same for you. Reality-imagination-and-same-are-you-for? It's a little strange situation for me, because I should have no problems to understand a swedish way of life. But I have great problems to understand what you say and how you feel and think. Why is this so?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my "god."    Go back to grade school and learn about evolution, will ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LittleNipper
> 
> Short intermezzo and some dirty and quick explanations:
> 
> Q:Where did life originate?
> A: The theory of evolution is able to say "in a first cell", because every lifeform has a common ancestor with every other lifeform. Saint Francis would say: "We are all brothers and sisters" like brother worm and sister bee for example.
> 
> Q: Why do you exist?
> A: The theory of evolution is not able to give here an answer.
> 
> Q: Where are you going?
> A: For the theory of evolution life is only able to exist in combination with death - while paradise and heaven are a place full of life without death.
> 
> Q: Why are you here?
> A: The theory of evolution denies the existance of plans (teleology) in nature. The philosophy of the theory of evolution would say: We are on no special reason here in this world and we go a way without any definable end, except the end of the own life.
> 
> Q: How do you know this?
> A: We know something in natural science because we agree on plausible reasons (in mathematics for example) or because we are able to ask the reality all around (for example in experiments). In biology for example we compare similiar structures and categorize this structures. For example we compare the hand of a Gorilla with the hand of a human being and try to find the common elements and the different elements. The more common elements and the less different elements the more is something like we are. A Gorilla is more similiar (near) - a bee and a worm are not so similiar (far).
> The very big problem of the theory of evolution are the experiments in genetics because all lifeforms on our planet are using the same code for reproduction. Nature makes changes littlest step by littlest step. We make it ... I fear "crazy". I personally don't have the impression in the Eldorado "genetics"  is a good knowledge really existing. Sometimes I have in this context the imagination children are playing with fire in a dry barn full of dry straw surrounded from a dry world without exit.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fatal flaw in the ToE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TOE Theory of Everything
> TOE TCP/IP Offload Engine
> TOE Table of Elements
> TOE Tales of Eternia (game)
> TOE Term of Enlistment
> TOE Transesophageal Echocardiogram
> TOE Tonne of Oil Equivalent
> TOE Telephone Outage Emergency (Emergency Alert System Code)
> TOE Total Ownership Experience
> TOE Time of Event
> TOE Table of Organization & Equipment
> TOE Total Operating Expense(s)
> TOE Task, Object, Event (computer programming)
> TOE Threaded One End
> TOE Test of Effectiveness (Sarbanes-Oxley compliance)
> TOE Target Operating Environment
> TOE Timing-Offset Estimation
> TOE Trial of Entrance (gaming clan recruitment)
> TOE Troops, Organization & Equipment
> TOE Time Operating Efficiency
> TOE Tri Ocean Engineering
> TOE Training on Errors (machine learning)
> TOE Technical Operations Expert
> TOE Transfer of Equity (finance)
> TOE Theory of Evolution
> TOE Through Other Eyes (UK)
> TOE Target of Evaluation
> 
> Guess I got it. So you said something like: "Verhängnisvoll fehlerbehaftet im Sinne des zu evaluierenden Zieles".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because it's hypotheses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me the exact words of this what you think what the hypothese is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life did not originate from a first cell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the only solution if every living multi-cellular organism has with every other multi-cellular organism a common ancestor. If you have a better solution say it. (Don't forget: What came before the first living cell is not part of biology but part of chemistry)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or else we would be seeing this happen all around us just from one cell. This is not testable experimentally either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The experiment in this case we call "fossils" and "pedigress". Physics is using methods of physics. Biology is using methods of biology. If we could explain biology only with methods of physics it would be physics. The hierarchy is: physics -> chemistry -> biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One can't even make protein from all the amino acids found in space, and it won't happen even if you can wait millions of years.
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To change the subject a bit, I saw Batman v Superman:  Dawn of Justice tonight and after the movie checked out an artist named Cleon Peterson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Batman and Superman are products of the spirit of artists. Cleon Peterson?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His street artist art was hanging in the museum used for Lex Luther's party.  Peterson uses Graeco-Roman vase style drawings depicting violence and brutality in basic black and white colors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Black and white are the colors of the german knights. Graeco-roman vases are beautiful. Both I see positive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and sometimes red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is remarkable how much he is able to express just using those colors.  He says, "“I call these guys the shadows.  It kind of represents the dark side of all of us.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the context now but the backround black and white and the color red don't express agressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His art depicts a world in which violence exists without context.  And he’s not afraid to show the uglier side of humanity.  He continues, “That world is today. People today, in the US especially, have become non-participatory as far as what’s going on in the world. Yes, we see violence and war in the media but people don’t feel like it’s your life – or has anything to do with you, but of course we are very much part of it.”  It's why we need the death penalty.
> 
> Cleon Peterson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one needs death penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ToE = Theory of Evolution.  Did you get toe jammed?  It's your hypotheses.
Click to expand...


The three letters "ToE" = "Theory of evolution" are only understandable in the context - and not absolute - of this what you speak about. I think in other ways. Knowledge needs always a context. And "Hypothese" seems to be different for me too. A hypothese needs variabels and constants and a way how to be able to falsify it.



> I already gave you one "major" hypothesis using your single-cell remark.  You followed it up with an untruth.



As far as I remember was my "untruth" to ask you something.



> To get from single to multiple cell organisms, then you need building blocks of protein.



First were single cells - then came multicellular organisms. So there was a way, independent from this what I know about. I guess the way was not simple, because there are some billion years between the first cells and the first multicellular organisms. But the complexity of multicellular organism and the biodiversity on planet Earth grew very fast afterwards.



> Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed.  Do you see how great God is?  How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?  The creation scientists have already explained how this is impossible to have occurred.
> 
> ...



I don't live in a fight with the theory of evolution nor do I live only a little in a fight with god.



> If you look at Cleon Peterson's other works, he depicts these things happening in poorer neighborhoods.  That's where the red comes in.  The poor want and deserve justice and the death penalty for their suffering violence and brutality on a regular basis.



Death Penalty is in the situation of the modern world today nothing else than pure nonsense. We saw: It was not good - and so we removed it. The last execution here was 35 years ago. I hope we never will have a regression into this form of addictive disorder of masses of human beings.
Somehow to discuss about remembers me in the moment how a friend of Saint Augustine had gigantic problems not to watch the gladiators in the circus, where they murdered so many people. Against his own free will he had to go often to this extremly violent games. But this time is over. One day also the time of death penalty will be over. Best is to stop today with it. Now. Immediatelly. Let death penalty not poison any longer your mind and heart.


_Tu nicht, als wenn du Tausende von Jahren zu leben hättest. Der Tod schwebt über deinem Haupte. So lange du noch lebst, so lange du noch kannst, sei ein rechtschaffener Mensch._
Mark Aurel

_Do not act as if you were going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over you. While you live, while it is in your power, be good.  _
Marcus Aurelius


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> ... Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't compare her feet to the tracks found.  There are no foot bones!  Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor.* ... *



Cleveland Museum of natural history: What your scientists found in Africa and what they reconstructed. Looks very good and plausible as far as I am able to see. And I don't have any idea about, how someone is able not to see the similarity between human beings and this "ape" - if it was an ape.






Under our skin we are all Africans: we are all Africa.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make a couple of points here.
> 1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
> 2. "*Even their names are based on geography, not time." , *think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
> Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
> Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
> Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
> 3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
> 4. The fact that you admit to these layers,  proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
> 5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
> 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.*
> 3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.
> 
> One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.
> 
> This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
> 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
> 2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
> 3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
> 4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
> The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Oh, that's what you meant.  LOL.  This has been answered by science and math.
> 
> The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation.  Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998).  If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas.  However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe.  This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.
> 
> Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away?  Please answer.
> 
> Here is what I learned in school.  Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point.  This is what surveyors do.
> 
> What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away.  At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth.  This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes.  So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright?  This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.
> 
> So what's the problem?  The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem.  How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth?  Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter.  We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away.  It is the narrow triangle problem.
> 
> Are you following me?  You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms.  Just how do you do that?
> 
> 2.  I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference.  It sounds like circular reasoning.  The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago.  The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago.  When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?
> 
> .What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed.  Occam's razor.
> 
> 3 and 4.  What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
> This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
> 2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
> 3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance.  When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet.  For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth.  All they could measure is length and width.  Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one.  There is the problem of spacetime.  I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology.  However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
> 2.  I didn't flip anything.  When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer.  Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating.  Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article.  If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us.  On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period.  If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded.  It is biased to say the least.  All of the results should be discarded.
> 3.  I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments.  The picture above showed 16 of them.  The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money.  Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side.  Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania.  This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago.  It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet.  The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors.  Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't compare her feet to the tracks found.  There are no foot bones!  Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.
> 
> Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man?  It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.
Click to expand...

1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time.  NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic.  Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
> 2.  With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location.  Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places.  The names follow Occam's Razor -- *The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.*
> 3.  I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists.  Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.
> 
> One of the best known “human ancestors” is an _Australopithecus afarensis_ skeleton called Lucy.  What does she look like?  A human skull?  Uhh... no.
> 
> This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Nope.  The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.  There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
> 5.  I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours.  It does not have to be in detail.
> 
> 
> 
> .1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
> 2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
> 3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
> 4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
> The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Oh, that's what you meant.  LOL.  This has been answered by science and math.
> 
> The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation.  Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998).  If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas.  However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe.  This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.
> 
> Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away?  Please answer.
> 
> Here is what I learned in school.  Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point.  This is what surveyors do.
> 
> What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away.  At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth.  This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes.  So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright?  This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.
> 
> So what's the problem?  The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem.  How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth?  Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter.  We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away.  It is the narrow triangle problem.
> 
> Are you following me?  You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms.  Just how do you do that?
> 
> 2.  I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference.  It sounds like circular reasoning.  The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago.  The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago.  When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?
> 
> .What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed.  Occam's razor.
> 
> 3 and 4.  What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
> This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
> 2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
> 3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance.  When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet.  For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth.  All they could measure is length and width.  Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one.  There is the problem of spacetime.  I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology.  However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
> 2.  I didn't flip anything.  When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer.  Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating.  Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article.  If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us.  On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period.  If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded.  It is biased to say the least.  All of the results should be discarded.
> 3.  I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments.  The picture above showed 16 of them.  The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money.  Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side.  Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania.  This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago.  It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet.  The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors.  Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't compare her feet to the tracks found.  There are no foot bones!  Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.
> 
> Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man?  It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
> 2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
> Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
> 3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
> As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
> 4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
> This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.
Click to expand...


 1.  It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience.  I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you.  This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news?  Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity.  Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science.  Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  You can watch it on youtube.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work.  Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars.  Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries.  CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
 2.  Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas.  I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained.  CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science.  What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories.  Why is this so?  This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first.  Darwin was able to publish it first.).  It also happened with catastrophism.  It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
 3.  Show me how bipedalism evolved?  The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."

"In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named _Australopithecus ramidus_, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, _Ardipithecus_.12

Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, _Australopithecus anamensis_. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an _A. anamensis_ tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be _Australopithecus afarensis_ (~3.9 million years ago).

It is still not clear if _Ardipithecus_ _ramidus _possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.

If _A. ramidus_ lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view _A. ramidus_ as the ancestral species that gave rise to _A. anamensis_. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."

Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism

4.  How can bones determine how long someone lived?  I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did.  They were more perfect.  The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes.  We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen.  One has to be lucky.  What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't compare her feet to the tracks found.  There are no foot bones!  Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor.* ... *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cleveland Museum of natural history: What your scientists found in Africa and what they reconstructed. Looks very good and plausible as far as I am able to see. And I don't have any idea about, how someone is able not to see the similarity between human beings and this "ape" - if it was an ape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under our skin we are all Africans: we are all Africa.
Click to expand...


The skeleton being human like and shown next to a little girl is really wishful thinking.  We're not sure if Lucy was human, ape, or a link between ape and human.  What we do know is _Australopithecus afarensis_ really existed.  Was Lucy a transitional form though?

Notice the nice teeth though.  If we evolved, then how come all of us do not turn out this way?

I say wishful thinking for evolutionists is because timing determines all for their "theories."


----------



## james bond

BTW forkup, I forgot to mention how timing is everything when it comes to evolutionary theories.  You brought up the law, but evolution cannot be taught but the evolutionists are trying.  Thus, the creationists are trying to get their theories taught, as well.  It will probably go on a state-by-state basis.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed. Do you see how great God is? How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?




all organism on earth are either single celled or multi-subdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi-disimilar celled organism in existence.

all cells throughout the life of the multi-subdivided organism (humans) have shared contents from the original cell.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed. Do you see how great God is? How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all organism on earth are either single celled or multi-subdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi-disimilar celled organism in existence.
> 
> all cells throughout the life of the multi-subdivided organism (humans) have shared contents from the original cell.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're an idiot. 

This is NOT biology.... it's pure idiocy.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed. Do you see how great God is? How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all organism on earth are either single celled or multi-subdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi-disimilar celled organism in existence.
> 
> all cells throughout the life of the multi-subdivided organism (humans) have shared contents from the original cell.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> This is NOT biology.... it's pure idiocy.
Click to expand...

.
I might agree with Bond you may be the one example of an organism on Earth composed of multi dissimilar cells.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> I might agree with Bond you may be the one example of an organism on Earth composed of multi dissimilar cells.



You're demonstrating a complete illiteracy of biology.  I mean... below 5th grade level! First of all, EVERY cell of EVERY living multi-cell organism is different. Some are very much alike because they do the same thing but even they are slightly different. Secondly... a single cell organism and multi-cell organism are entirely different. Both contain a DNA molecule, that is the only similarity. In a single cell organism, the functional attributes of the organism is self-contained and the DNA controls all aspects from within that single cell. The organism can never be a multi-cellular organism. Multi-cellular organisms are completely different. The DNA molecule contains the instructions for all cells in the organism including the cell it is contained within. But the cell itself has a specific function for the organism as a whole, it is not "stand-alone" in any way. It works in harmony with other cells which the DNA also instructs. 

Your asinine argument is like trying to claim a kazoo player and a symphony orchestra are virtually the same thing because a kazoo player has a brain and so does a conductor. This is beyond "dumb" and is embarrassingly illiterate of biology.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed. Do you see how great God is? How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> all organism on earth are either single celled or multi-subdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi-disimilar celled organism in existence.
> 
> all cells throughout the life of the multi-subdivided organism (humans) have shared contents from the original cell.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with my comment?

Still no answer from the evos, so do they lose?


----------



## Mudda

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might agree with Bond you may be the one example of an organism on Earth composed of multi dissimilar cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're demonstrating a complete illiteracy of biology.  I mean... below 5th grade level! First of all, EVERY cell of EVERY living multi-cell organism is different. Some are very much alike because they do the same thing but even they are slightly different. Secondly... a single cell organism and multi-cell organism are entirely different. Both contain a DNA molecule, that is the only similarity. In a single cell organism, the functional attributes of the organism is self-contained and the DNA controls all aspects from within that single cell. The organism can never be a multi-cellular organism. Multi-cellular organisms are completely different. The DNA molecule contains the instructions for all cells in the organism including the cell it is contained within. But the cell itself has a specific function for the organism as a whole, it is not "stand-alone" in any way. It works in harmony with other cells which the DNA also instructs.
> 
> Your asinine argument is like trying to claim a kazoo player and a symphony orchestra are virtually the same thing because a kazoo player has a brain and so does a conductor. This is beyond "dumb" and is embarrassingly illiterate of biology.
Click to expand...

Boss likes to pretend he's superior to everyone here, because in real life I bet he's a massive loser.


----------



## Boss

Mudda said:


> Boss likes to pretend he's superior to everyone here...



It doesn't take much to be intellectually superior to this bunch.


----------



## Mudda

Boss said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss likes to pretend he's superior to everyone here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't take much to be intellectually superior to this bunch.
Click to expand...

You're right, but you're not. By a long fucking shot.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


Boss said:


> First of all, EVERY cell of EVERY living multi-cell organism is different. Some are very much alike because they do the same thing but even they are slightly different. Secondly... a single cell organism and multi-cell organism are entirely different.




_*bos: - a single cell organism and multi-cell organism are entirely different.*_

no they are not, they are both confined to an original single cell - all organisms on earth are either single celled or multisubdivided singe celled organisms - there are no multidissimilar celled organism on Earth.









it is a subtle distinction but irrefutable in the diagram above from the first division onward there is never a multi cellular organism but a multi-subdivided organism that throughout its life remains enclosed within its initial single cell.

it is a red herring to ask how multicellular organisms evolved when non have done so - every being on earth is within the confines of an original single cell.




Boss said:


> This is beyond "dumb" and is embarrassingly illiterate of biology.



no bossy, not everyone is a neo-creationist like you ...

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> no they are not, they are both confined to an original single cell - all organisms on earth are either single celled or multisubdivided singe celled organisms - there are no multidissimilar celled organism on Earth.



*they are both confined to an original single cell* 
*sigh* Yep... they both have a cell membrane which delineates them as cells. 

*all organisms on earth are either single celled or multisubdivided singe celled organisms*
*sigh* No... all cells on earth are either single cell organisms or part of a multi-cell organism. There is no such thing as a "multisubdivided single cell organism" and no such word as "multisubdivided." 

*there are no multidissimilar celled organism on Earth.*
*sigh* Also no such word as "multidissimilar" and every cell is unique.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
all the cells in the diagram are constrained inside the original cell and all the cells present and in the future are derived from that same initial cell - an organism is a combination but of only one original  cell.

the point being evolution has not to date expanded from a single cell origin and has used the single cell to subdivide itself to form new species not species becoming multidissimilar multicellular organisms.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> .
> all the cells in the diagram are constrained inside the original cell and all the cells present and in the future are derived from that same initial cell - an organism is a combination but of only one original  cell.
> 
> the point being evolution has not to date expanded from a single cell origin and has used the single cell to subdivide itself to form new species not species becoming multidissimilar multicellular organisms.
> 
> .



You're making even less sense than you normally make... and THAT is some feat!  

The diagram you posted is a multi-cell organism replicating and reproducing. A single-cell organism doesn't do that. It remains a single cell. The diagram is showing several cells inside of a common membrane but the several cells cannot be ONE cell. Several doesn't equal one... it's math... learn it!


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> all the cells in the diagram are constrained inside the original cell and all the cells present and in the future are derived from that same initial cell - an organism is a combination but of only one original  cell.
> 
> the point being evolution has not to date expanded from a single cell origin and has used the single cell to subdivide itself to form new species not species becoming multidissimilar multicellular organisms.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making even less sense than you normally make... and THAT is some feat!
> 
> The diagram you posted is a multi-cell organism replicating and reproducing. A single-cell organism doesn't do that. It remains a single cell. The diagram is showing several cells inside of a common membrane but the several cells cannot be ONE cell. Several doesn't equal one... it's math... learn it!
Click to expand...

.
that is as close to a concession anyone will ever get from the Bossy, there may be hope for them afterall.

_*
A single-cell organism doesn't do that.*_

that is exactly what a single cell did for the next step in evolution, divided itself - it does not magically appear from one to two distinct dissimilar cells in the process the creationist depict it as.

or more likely two single cells collided, liked it and joined together and began the cycle of ever more improvement.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> all the cells in the diagram are constrained inside the original cell and all the cells present and in the future are derived from that same initial cell - an organism is a combination but of only one original  cell.
> 
> the point being evolution has not to date expanded from a single cell origin and has used the single cell to subdivide itself to form new species not species becoming multidissimilar multicellular organisms.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making even less sense than you normally make... and THAT is some feat!
> 
> The diagram you posted is a multi-cell organism replicating and reproducing. A single-cell organism doesn't do that. It remains a single cell. The diagram is showing several cells inside of a common membrane but the several cells cannot be ONE cell. Several doesn't equal one... it's math... learn it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> that is as close to a concession anyone will ever get from the Bossy, there may be hope for them afterall.
> 
> _*
> A single-cell organism doesn't do that.*_
> 
> that is exactly what a single cell did for the next step in evolution, divided itself - it does not magically appear from one to two distinct dissimilar cells in the process the creationist depict it as.
> 
> or more likely two single cells collided, liked it and joined together and began the cycle of ever more improvement.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well sorry but you have not proven this happened and you can't replicate this theory in a lab. So what you have is a faith-based belief that's what happened. The problem is, biology simply doesn't support your theory. 

A cell of a single cell organism has some similarities with cells from a multi-cell organism but the functions are completely different. That can't just be shucked off as a trivial detail, it's very important. Your argument is infantile and childlike but you are persistent. You've demonstrated you have no knowledge of biology or how living organisms work.


----------



## the_human_being

I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding?  Is that about right?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> A cell of a single cell organism ...




you are a poor loser bossy,

name any creature on earth which does not begin as a single cell and that does extend beyond an initial membrane ...

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> you are a poor loser bossy,
> 
> name any creature on earth which does not begin as a single cell and that does extend beyond an initial membrane ...



*Any multi-cellular organism. *

In ALL multi-cell organisms, the cells depend on other cells to carry on the process of life. These organisms do not begin as single-cell organisms, they always require two gamete reproductive cells to initiate the organism and begin the process of life. An "organism" is not an "organism" until it carries on the process of life.... that's what* defines* an organism.  

And I am not a poor loser, Breezy... I am just way smarter than you and I refuse to allow your incompetence to win the arguments you cannot support. You don't like that so you call me names and denigrate. I totally understand... if I were being embarrassed in front of everyone, I'd probably be upset as well. But you're not going to make this stop by insulting me, you should realize that by now. The best option you have is to stop posting.


----------



## Boss

the_human_being said:


> I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding?  Is that about right?



Kind of, but they will say you're over-simplifying this... You see, first we have to totally suspend disbelief. We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism. Over millions and billions of years, and against all mathematical odds, this original organism brought forth millions of life forms which are totally interdependent on each other in an environment that should not exist and in a universe that shouldn't be here.


----------



## pinqy

the_human_being said:


> I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding?  Is that about right?


Not even close.


----------



## pinqy

Boss said:


> We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism.


No one claims that.


----------



## james bond

This one billion trillion FPS ultra-high speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  Thus, a star "seen" from the edge of the universe can actually be from 6,000 years ago on Earth as seen through our most powerful telescopes.  If one can place an atomic clock at the edge of the universe and one on Earth, then the one at the edge could show 15 billions of years while the one on Earth shows 6,000 years.

Explanation here TED Talks


----------



## the_human_being

Boss said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding?  Is that about right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of, but they will say you're over-simplifying this... You see, first we have to totally suspend disbelief. We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism. Over millions and billions of years, and against all mathematical odds, this original organism brought forth millions of life forms which are totally interdependent on each other in an environment that should not exist and in a universe that shouldn't be here.
Click to expand...


Exactly. It would be easier to believe in the Mother Goose tales.


----------



## the_human_being

pinqy said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding?  Is that about right?
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
Click to expand...


Well, I did ask for some help in understanding it, didn't I? Simply explain to me how it was possible for a human baby to be produced from a single asexual cell. That should simple enough for all you scientific brains out there.


----------



## pinqy

the_human_being said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding?  Is that about right?
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I did ask for some help in understanding it, didn't I?
Click to expand...

True.  Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is.  At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile?  There is none.  Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human."  It was a gradual process.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> .1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
> 2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
> 3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
> 4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
> The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most  are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Oh, that's what you meant.  LOL.  This has been answered by science and math.
> 
> The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation.  Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998).  If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas.  However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe.  This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.
> 
> Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away?  Please answer.
> 
> Here is what I learned in school.  Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point.  This is what surveyors do.
> 
> What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away.  At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth.  This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes.  So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright?  This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.
> 
> So what's the problem?  The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem.  How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth?  Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter.  We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away.  It is the narrow triangle problem.
> 
> Are you following me?  You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms.  Just how do you do that?
> 
> 2.  I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference.  It sounds like circular reasoning.  The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago.  The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago.  When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?
> 
> .What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed.  Occam's razor.
> 
> 3 and 4.  What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
> This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
> 2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
> 3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance.  When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet.  For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth.  All they could measure is length and width.  Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one.  There is the problem of spacetime.  I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology.  However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
> 2.  I didn't flip anything.  When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer.  Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating.  Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article.  If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us.  On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period.  If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded.  It is biased to say the least.  All of the results should be discarded.
> 3.  I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments.  The picture above showed 16 of them.  The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money.  Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side.  Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania.  This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago.  It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet.  The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors.  Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't compare her feet to the tracks found.  There are no foot bones!  Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.
> 
> Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man?  It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
> 2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
> Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
> 3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
> As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
> 4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
> This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience.  I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you.  This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news?  Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity.  Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science.  Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  You can watch it on youtube.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work.  Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars.  Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries.  CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
> 2.  Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas.  I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained.  CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science.  What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories.  Why is this so?  This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first.  Darwin was able to publish it first.).  It also happened with catastrophism.  It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
> 3.  Show me how bipedalism evolved?  The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."
> 
> "In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named _Australopithecus ramidus_, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, _Ardipithecus_.12
> 
> Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, _Australopithecus anamensis_. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an _A. anamensis_ tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be _Australopithecus afarensis_ (~3.9 million years ago).
> 
> It is still not clear if _Ardipithecus_ _ramidus _possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.
> 
> If _A. ramidus_ lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view _A. ramidus_ as the ancestral species that gave rise to _A. anamensis_. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."
> 
> Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism
> 
> 4.  How can bones determine how long someone lived?  I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did.  They were more perfect.  The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes.  We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen.  One has to be lucky.  What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.
Click to expand...

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.


----------



## Boss

pinqy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism.
> 
> 
> 
> No one claims that.
Click to expand...


Well... Yes, they do. Breezy is arguing it in this very thread. Others have argued it as well. They believe all living things evolved from a common single cell organism. Evolutionists can't logically explain origin of life otherwise.


----------



## Boss

pinqy said:


> True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.



Problem is, the fossil record disagrees with you. We should see the fossil layers rife with "transitional species" whereby one thing is becoming something else, and we don't see that. We see species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing. 

Trey Smith points out, if an arm becomes a wing... it's going to be a very bad arm for a long time before it becomes a very good wing. Such a slow transition is likely not going to save a species in evolution.


----------



## the_human_being

pinqy said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to understand it myself if you folks will help me out a little. Let's see, humans are mammals. This would mean, according to evolutionists, that at some time in the very distant past, both a male and a female just happened to crawl forth from some slime pool at about the same time and in the same part of this big world. They then got together and started breeding?  Is that about right?
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I did ask for some help in understanding it, didn't I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.  Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is.  At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile?  There is none.  Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human."  It was a gradual process.
Click to expand...



Of course it was. That's the way babies are being produced now  Cheeze!!  Go back and get a refund from what you paid for your education or get a woman and let her explain to you how babies are made and how they have always been made.


----------



## the_human_being

Boss said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, the fossil record disagrees with you. We should see the fossil layers rife with "transitional species" whereby one thing is becoming something else, and we don't see that. We see species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing.
> 
> Trey Smith points out, if an arm becomes a wing... it's going to be a very bad arm for a long time before it becomes a very good wing. Such a slow transition is likely not going to save a species in evolution.
Click to expand...


Boss, you can't use common sense on the highly intelligent.


----------



## pinqy

Boss said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to accept that biogenesis is wrong and mathematical odds are wrong. In spite of mathematical impossibility and biological impossibility, a single cell somehow managed to "evolve" into a multi-cellular organism.
> 
> 
> 
> No one claims that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... Yes, they do. Breezy is arguing it in this very thread. Others have argued it as well. They believe all living things evolved from a common single cell organism. Evolutionists can't logically explain origin of life otherwise.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms.  The first implies that one single cell creature somehow transformed itself into a multi-cellular creature.  What makes more sense is that single cell creatures formed colonies...over time, due to transcription errors, and/or other changes, parts of the colony were no longer independent, then none of the colony was independent and that is a multicellular creature. 

What process do you suggest makes more sense?


----------



## pinqy

Boss said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, the fossil record disagrees with you. We should see the fossil layers rife with "transitional species" whereby one thing is becoming something else, and we don't see that. We see species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing.
Click to expand...

 Not quite.  It seems you're thinking of evolution like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, where there is a set beginning state and a set end state, with a transition state in between. But that's not what evolutionary theory claims.  Most changes are incremental and small, and not necessarily distinctly recognizable. There's no point where you can clearly say: "this generation was species A, and the next generation was species B." There's a point where you can say "Species A" and a  point where you can say "Species B," but you can't necessarily recognize the point of change...or a side branch that becomes species A.5 instead of B.

And remember...when you're saying "suddenly," that means over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years.  Fossils are rare.  We can't expect to find any, but what we can do is predict that IF certain fossils are found that they will have certain qualities.  And those predictions, such as whales with legs, have been correct.



> Trey Smith points out, if an arm becomes a wing... it's going to be a very bad arm for a long time before it becomes a very good wing. Such a slow transition is likely not going to save a species in evolution.


 Why would it have to "save it?"  Ostriches, emus,  cassowaries, kiwis, all seem to do well with non-functioning wings that are not good arms.


----------



## Boss

pinqy said:


> There's a difference between saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms.  The first implies that one single cell creature somehow transformed itself into a multi-cellular creature.  What makes more sense is that single cell creatures formed colonies...over time, due to transcription errors, and/or other changes, parts of the colony were no longer independent, then none of the colony was independent and that is a multicellular creature.
> 
> What process do you suggest makes more sense?



Uhmm... NAw... there is no difference in saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms. It's two ways of saying exactly the same thing. In your hypothesis, the single cell evolved into multi-cell organism... you surmise it was through "transcription errors" and colonization. The problem is, there is no biological support for your hypothesis. Therefore, it doesn't make sense.

Biologically speaking, multi-cell and single cell organisms operate and function differently. It's like saying if you grow grapes long enough, they will produce goldfish. They are two biologically different systems. Back when Darwin was alive, people did THINK this, because it sounds plausible and rational... but that's the amazing thing about science.... many times, the plausible and rational explanation is totally wrong. This is precisely why we invented Science.


----------



## Boss

pinqy said:


> Not quite. It seems you're thinking of evolution like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, where there is a set beginning state and a set end state, with a transition state in between. But that's not what evolutionary theory claims. Most changes are incremental and small, and not necessarily distinctly recognizable. There's no point where you can clearly say: "this generation was species A, and the next generation was species B." There's a point where you can say "Species A" and a point where you can say "Species B," but you can't necessarily recognize the point of change...or a side branch that becomes species A.5 instead of B.
> 
> And remember...when you're saying "suddenly," that means over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Fossils are rare. We can't expect to find any, but what we can do is predict that IF certain fossils are found that they will have certain qualities. And those predictions, such as whales with legs, have been correct.



When I say "suddenly" I mean suddenly. We can pinpoint where various species came into existence in the fossil record and when they became extinct. They appear, full formed, suddenly... not over millions of years of transition. The "whales with legs" thing is a myth... largely speaking.  Whales do have a bony structure which could, in a deformity, appear to be a "leg" but this is not connected to the vertebral structure which is the case in every mammal that has legs. This bony structure also has a fundamental purpose to the species... and it's not so that whales can walk. 

I understand how the evolution process is supposed to work, you're not talking to someone who is illiterate. At this time, there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any cross-genus evolution. The ONLY evolution is adaptation of species over time to form (sometimes) new species... not new genera taxa. Black bears become polar bears... spotted owls become white owls... those are adaptations. 

DNA is the smoking gun that kills cross-genus evolution or "macro-evolution" because DNA proves it's not possible biologically. The mitochondria in the DNA molecule functions based on a specific amino acid and enzyme combination and nothing else works with it. In order for the "mutation" theory (Darwin) to be valid, the mathematical probability of a randomly-produced correct combination is 10^180 ...that is greater than all the atoms in the known universe. In other words, mathematically impossible. 

They tested fruit flies for over 100 years, trying to make a mutation happen in order to prove the mutation theory and they failed to find any evidence of such. After millions and millions of generations, not one new amino acid or enzyme was produced. This is quite simply, an 18th century theory that has no basis for support today. Yet... Evolutionist Atheists cling to it like the Holy Grail... pardon the pun.


----------



## pinqy

Boss said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms.  The first implies that one single cell creature somehow transformed itself into a multi-cellular creature.  What makes more sense is that single cell creatures formed colonies...over time, due to transcription errors, and/or other changes, parts of the colony were no longer independent, then none of the colony was independent and that is a multicellular creature.
> 
> What process do you suggest makes more sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhmm... NAw... there is no difference in saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms. It's two ways of saying exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

 No, it's really not. But that you can't understand that is probably part of the issue.




> In your hypothesis, the single cell evolved into multi-cell organism... you surmise it was through "transcription errors" and colonization.


No, in my scenario, multiple single cell organisms form colonies over the course of millions/billions of years, and over the course of more millions of years, the colony becomes as a single organism.  

That's not the same as an individual single cell just turning into a multi-cellular organism.



> The problem is, there is no biological support for your hypothesis. Therefore, it doesn't make sense.


 Of course there is Choanoflagellates are single-celled but also form colonies, by incomplete cell division.  There's no known reason that process, which is very much like what happens with zygotes, couldn't be the basis of multicellular life.


----------



## BreezeWood

pinqy said:


> No, it's really not. But that you can't understand that is probably part of the issue.



or not just him but the (above) creationist that simply close their minds for various reasons ...





pinqy said:


> Of course there is Choanoflagellates are single-celled but also form colonies, by incomplete cell division. There's no known reason that process, which is very much like what happens with zygotes, couldn't be the basis of multicellular life.



 _*couldn't be the basis of multicellular life.*_

could that be a misprint ....


is there a multi(dissimilar)cellular organism on Earth or are they multisubdided (similar) cellular organisms that inhabit our planet ?

.


----------



## the_human_being

I find it totally awesome that a female in her child-bearing years somehow swam ashore from some slime pool at the same time a virile male swam ashore from the same slime pool and that they got together. I mean, suppose the female had swam ashore a million years prior to that male swimming ashore or that the female didn't climb out of a slime pool in China and that the male climbed forth from a slime pool in Africa. I mean really, what are the odds here?


----------



## BreezeWood

.
... the gals I know would find him if he jumped up and landed on Mars or be waiting there for him - if interested.




the_human_being said:


> ... climb out of a slime pool



is that the Almighty's Garden or the maintenance you keep in your "own" back yard ?

.


----------



## the_human_being

BreezeWood said:


> .
> ... the gals I know would find him if he jumped up and landed on Mars or be waiting there for him - if interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... climb out of a slime pool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that the Almighty's Garden or the maintenance you keep in your "own" back yard ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually, it's what has been put forth by the highly intelligent and scientific minded evolutionists. Of course, most of them claim that all life began from some single-celled organism in some primeval slime pool. I've never seen a baby born without the benefit of a female's egg and a male's sperm myself and have asked for a scientific explanation from some of the geniuses on here but thus far I have received no viable and believable response.


----------



## Boss

pinqy said:


> No, in my scenario, multiple single cell organisms form colonies over the course of millions/billions of years, and over the course of more millions of years, the colony becomes as a single organism.
> 
> That's not the same as an individual single cell just turning into a multi-cellular organism.



It's exactly the same. You are simply trying to "imagine" my argument to be some kind of *poof* moment in which the evolution happened... that's the only difference. "As a" is not "A" ...very important distinction. Colonies of ants and bees can function "as a" single entity... it doesn't _make_ them one. In a million or a billion years, they will never become a single entity. 



pinqy said:


> Of course there is Choanoflagellates are single-celled but also form colonies, by incomplete cell division. There's no known reason that process, which is very much like what happens with zygotes, couldn't be the basis of multicellular life.



I'm sorry, but again... you are talking about a THEORY from the 1800s that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory. You have a group of scientists saying "we THINK this is what happened..." and that's all you have. Because you have a theory that you cannot reason why it's not possible, doesn't mean it happened. If you are trying to make that be science, you've simply substituted faith for science. 

And that seems to be an ongoing problem here.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory.




boss lives in a makebelieve "I told you so" mentality, never producing links to any of his ramblings.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boss lives in a makebelieve "I told you so" mentality, never producing links to any of his ramblings.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I can't give you links to something that doesn't exist. It's incumbent upon you to provide me with links in order to support your claims. I have no obligation to refute that which you haven't provided evidence for. 

The example given is a theory. I've heard the theory before and there is no science to actually support it at this time. In science, theories don't become facts because you desperately need for them to be facts. You can certainly run around claiming theories are facts but that isn't science... that's faith.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> I can't give you links to something that doesn't exist.



no one asked you to, simply links supporting your accusations ...



Boss said:


> you are talking about a THEORY from the 1800s that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory.





Boss said:


> They appear, full formed, suddenly... not over millions of years of transition. The "whales with legs" thing is a myth... largely speaking.




_*- not over millions of years of transition.*_


that's a good one ... give it a rest bossy.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't give you links to something that doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one asked you to, simply links supporting your accusations ...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are talking about a THEORY from the 1800s that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> They appear, full formed, suddenly... not over millions of years of transition. The "whales with legs" thing is a myth... largely speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*- not over millions of years of transition.*_
> 
> 
> that's a good one ... give it a rest bossy.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well yes... that was what you demanded... That I link you to something saying there is no scientific evidence to support your cockamamie theory. The burden of proof is on YOU... not ME!  

And I don't know what you mean by "give it a rest" when I said the fossil record shows species appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. If species transitioned into new genus taxa, we'd find plenty of fossil evidence of it... we don't!  We see fully-formed creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record... where is their common ancestors? Why were they not included in the fossil record as well? You don't have answers, just theories.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


Boss said:


> Well yes... that was what you demanded...




no, my diagram, link speaks for itself, you simply offer smokescreens and bellicose reply's when you have been thwarted, personal vendettas rather than reasonable responses.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes... that was what you demanded...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, my diagram, link speaks for itself, you simply offer smokescreens and bellicose reply's when you have been thwarted, personal vendettas rather than reasonable responses.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your diagram was of a multi-cell organism functioning as a multi-cell organism. You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular. Your supposition is not supported by biological facts. Sorry.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Your diagram was of a multi-cell organism functioning as a multi-cell organism. You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular. Your supposition is not supported by biological facts. Sorry.




_*You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular.*_


the diagram is the link, all life on planet earth is either singlecellular or multisubdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi dissimilar celled organisms in existence.


[ you HAVE NOT named any creature on earth that is a multidisimilarly celled organism. ]

do so - or relent.

.


----------



## TNumber

Socialist said:


> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.


lol stupid communest fascest
God was always existed.  not that hard too understand but imguess ur a libturd so ur dumber then average


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


So if science can't explain it in terms you can understand, it qualifies as a miracle?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your diagram was of a multi-cell organism functioning as a multi-cell organism. You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular. Your supposition is not supported by biological facts. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular.*_
> 
> 
> the diagram is the link, all life on planet earth is either singlecellular or multisubdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi dissimilar celled organisms in existence.
> 
> 
> [ you HAVE NOT named any creature on earth that is a multidisimilarly celled organism. ]
> 
> do so - or relent.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Again, your graphic (which is not a LINK) depicts a multi-cell life form in process of reproduction. It has absolutely ZERO to do with unicellular life forms which function completely differently from your diagram. 

I HAVE given you an example of multi-cellular life where the cells are dissimilar. EVERY multi-cell life form!  ALL of them!  100% of them!  In your entire body comprised of trillions of cells, no two are exactly alike. Many are similar, depending on their function. Many are quite different. NONE of your cells can independently carry on the process of life by themselves. That makes you a multi-cellular life form and not a unicellular one.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> I HAVE given you an example of multi-cellular life where the cells are dissimilar. EVERY multi-cell life form! ALL of them! 100% of them! In your entire body comprised of trillions of cells, no two are exactly alike. Many are similar, depending on their function. Many are quite different. NONE of your cells can independently carry on the process of life by themselves. That makes you a multi-cellular life form and not a unicellular one.




again you ignore the diagram, all cellular structures are within the initial cell - each because of the triggering combined nucleus's directive to perform differing tasks are nonetheless composed entirely from the initial cell. there are no dissimilar cells within any living creature on Earth.




BreezeWood said:


> you HAVE NOT named any creature on earth that is a multidisimilarly celled organism.



are the leaves of an Oak tree a different organism than the Oak ... 



.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> again you ignore the diagram, all cellular structures are within the initial cell - each because of the triggering combined nucleus's directive to perform differing tasks are nonetheless composed entirely from the initial cell. there are no dissimilar cells within any living creature on Earth.



I didn't ignore anything. Your diagram doesn't show any unicellular life form. Again... EVERY cell in EVERY multi-cell life form is different... like snowflakes.


----------



## GaryDog

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> again you ignore the diagram, all cellular structures are within the initial cell - each because of the triggering combined nucleus's directive to perform differing tasks are nonetheless composed entirely from the initial cell. there are no dissimilar cells within any living creature on Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ignore anything. Your diagram doesn't show any unicellular life form. Again... EVERY cell in EVERY multi-cell life form is different... like snowflakes.
Click to expand...

Jesus you are weapons-grade stupid.


----------



## Boss

GaryDog said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> again you ignore the diagram, all cellular structures are within the initial cell - each because of the triggering combined nucleus's directive to perform differing tasks are nonetheless composed entirely from the initial cell. there are no dissimilar cells within any living creature on Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ignore anything. Your diagram doesn't show any unicellular life form. Again... EVERY cell in EVERY multi-cell life form is different... like snowflakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus you are weapons-grade stupid.
Click to expand...


Wow... it's so hard for me to argue with such sound and well-thought-out arguments!


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Oh, that's what you meant.  LOL.  This has been answered by science and math.
> 
> The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation.  Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998).  If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas.  However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe.  This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.
> 
> Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away?  Please answer.
> 
> Here is what I learned in school.  Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point.  This is what surveyors do.
> 
> What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away.  At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth.  This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes.  So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright?  This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.
> 
> So what's the problem?  The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem.  How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth?  Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter.  We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away.  It is the narrow triangle problem.
> 
> Are you following me?  You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms.  Just how do you do that?
> 
> 2.  I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference.  It sounds like circular reasoning.  The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago.  The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago.  When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?
> 
> .What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed.  Occam's razor.
> 
> 3 and 4.  What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
> This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
> 2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
> 3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance.  When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet.  For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth.  All they could measure is length and width.  Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one.  There is the problem of spacetime.  I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology.  However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
> 2.  I didn't flip anything.  When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer.  Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating.  Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article.  If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us.  On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period.  If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded.  It is biased to say the least.  All of the results should be discarded.
> 3.  I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments.  The picture above showed 16 of them.  The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money.  Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side.  Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania.  This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago.  It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet.  The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors.  Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't compare her feet to the tracks found.  There are no foot bones!  Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.
> 
> Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man?  It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
> 2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
> Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
> 3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
> As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
> 4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
> This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience.  I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you.  This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news?  Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity.  Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science.  Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  You can watch it on youtube.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work.  Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars.  Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries.  CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
> 2.  Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas.  I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained.  CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science.  What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories.  Why is this so?  This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first.  Darwin was able to publish it first.).  It also happened with catastrophism.  It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
> 3.  Show me how bipedalism evolved?  The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."
> 
> "In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named _Australopithecus ramidus_, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, _Ardipithecus_.12
> 
> Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, _Australopithecus anamensis_. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an _A. anamensis_ tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be _Australopithecus afarensis_ (~3.9 million years ago).
> 
> It is still not clear if _Ardipithecus_ _ramidus _possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.
> 
> If _A. ramidus_ lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view _A. ramidus_ as the ancestral species that gave rise to _A. anamensis_. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."
> 
> Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism
> 
> 4.  How can bones determine how long someone lived?  I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did.  They were more perfect.  The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes.  We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen.  One has to be lucky.  What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
> 2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
> 3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
> 4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
> 5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.
Click to expand...


I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.


----------



## james bond

pinqy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, the fossil record disagrees with you. We should see the fossil layers rife with "transitional species" whereby one thing is becoming something else, and we don't see that. We see species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not quite.  It seems you're thinking of evolution like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, where there is a set beginning state and a set end state, with a transition state in between. But that's not what evolutionary theory claims.  Most changes are incremental and small, and not necessarily distinctly recognizable. There's no point where you can clearly say: "this generation was species A, and the next generation was species B." There's a point where you can say "Species A" and a  point where you can say "Species B," but you can't necessarily recognize the point of change...or a side branch that becomes species A.5 instead of B.
> 
> And remember...when you're saying "suddenly," that means over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years.  Fossils are rare.  We can't expect to find any, but what we can do is predict that IF certain fossils are found that they will have certain qualities.  And those predictions, such as whales with legs, have been correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trey Smith points out, if an arm becomes a wing... it's going to be a very bad arm for a long time before it becomes a very good wing. Such a slow transition is likely not going to save a species in evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it have to "save it?"  Ostriches, emus,  cassowaries, kiwis, all seem to do well with non-functioning wings that are not good arms.
Click to expand...


All of this is just hypotheses or just SWAG.  Not much evidence for the millions of years except that which was made up and then piled upon like you know what.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
> This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
> 2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
> 3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance.  When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet.  For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth.  All they could measure is length and width.  Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one.  There is the problem of spacetime.  I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology.  However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
> 2.  I didn't flip anything.  When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer.  Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating.  Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article.  If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us.  On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period.  If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded.  It is biased to say the least.  All of the results should be discarded.
> 3.  I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments.  The picture above showed 16 of them.  The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money.  Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side.  Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania.  This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago.  It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet.  The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors.  Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't compare her feet to the tracks found.  There are no foot bones!  Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.
> 
> Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man?  It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
> 2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
> Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
> 3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
> As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
> 4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
> This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience.  I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you.  This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news?  Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity.  Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science.  Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  You can watch it on youtube.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work.  Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars.  Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries.  CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
> 2.  Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas.  I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained.  CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science.  What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories.  Why is this so?  This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first.  Darwin was able to publish it first.).  It also happened with catastrophism.  It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
> 3.  Show me how bipedalism evolved?  The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."
> 
> "In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named _Australopithecus ramidus_, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, _Ardipithecus_.12
> 
> Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, _Australopithecus anamensis_. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an _A. anamensis_ tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be _Australopithecus afarensis_ (~3.9 million years ago).
> 
> It is still not clear if _Ardipithecus_ _ramidus _possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.
> 
> If _A. ramidus_ lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view _A. ramidus_ as the ancestral species that gave rise to _A. anamensis_. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."
> 
> Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism
> 
> 4.  How can bones determine how long someone lived?  I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did.  They were more perfect.  The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes.  We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen.  One has to be lucky.  What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
> 2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
> 3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
> 4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
> 5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.
Click to expand...

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance.  When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet.  For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth.  All they could measure is length and width.  Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one.  There is the problem of spacetime.  I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology.  However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
> 2.  I didn't flip anything.  When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer.  Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating.  Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article.  If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us.  On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period.  If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded.  It is biased to say the least.  All of the results should be discarded.
> 3.  I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments.  The picture above showed 16 of them.  The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money.  Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side.  Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania.  This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago.  It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet.  The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors.  Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't compare her feet to the tracks found.  There are no foot bones!  Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.
> 
> Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man?  It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
> 2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
> Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
> 3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
> As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
> 4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
> This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience.  I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you.  This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news?  Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity.  Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science.  Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  You can watch it on youtube.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work.  Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars.  Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries.  CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
> 2.  Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas.  I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained.  CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science.  What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories.  Why is this so?  This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first.  Darwin was able to publish it first.).  It also happened with catastrophism.  It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
> 3.  Show me how bipedalism evolved?  The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."
> 
> "In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named _Australopithecus ramidus_, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, _Ardipithecus_.12
> 
> Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, _Australopithecus anamensis_. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an _A. anamensis_ tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be _Australopithecus afarensis_ (~3.9 million years ago).
> 
> It is still not clear if _Ardipithecus_ _ramidus _possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.
> 
> If _A. ramidus_ lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view _A. ramidus_ as the ancestral species that gave rise to _A. anamensis_. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."
> 
> Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism
> 
> 4.  How can bones determine how long someone lived?  I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did.  They were more perfect.  The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes.  We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen.  One has to be lucky.  What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
> 2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
> 3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
> 4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
> 5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.
Click to expand...


Back to the grind.

 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?  

Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.

To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.

 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.

3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.

4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?

5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
> 2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
> Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
> 3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
> As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
> 4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
> This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience.  I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you.  This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news?  Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity.  Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science.  Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  You can watch it on youtube.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work.  Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars.  Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries.  CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
> 2.  Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas.  I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained.  CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science.  What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories.  Why is this so?  This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first.  Darwin was able to publish it first.).  It also happened with catastrophism.  It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
> 3.  Show me how bipedalism evolved?  The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."
> 
> "In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named _Australopithecus ramidus_, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, _Ardipithecus_.12
> 
> Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, _Australopithecus anamensis_. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an _A. anamensis_ tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be _Australopithecus afarensis_ (~3.9 million years ago).
> 
> It is still not clear if _Ardipithecus_ _ramidus _possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.
> 
> If _A. ramidus_ lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view _A. ramidus_ as the ancestral species that gave rise to _A. anamensis_. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."
> 
> Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism
> 
> 4.  How can bones determine how long someone lived?  I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did.  They were more perfect.  The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes.  We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen.  One has to be lucky.  What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
> 2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
> 3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
> 4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
> 5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
Click to expand...

1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years. 
3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because

Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
> 2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
> Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
> 3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
> As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
> 4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
> This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience.  I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you.  This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news?  Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity.  Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science.  Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  You can watch it on youtube.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work.  Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars.  Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries.  CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
> 2.  Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas.  I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained.  CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science.  What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories.  Why is this so?  This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first.  Darwin was able to publish it first.).  It also happened with catastrophism.  It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
> 3.  Show me how bipedalism evolved?  The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."
> 
> "In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named _Australopithecus ramidus_, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, _Ardipithecus_.12
> 
> Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, _Australopithecus anamensis_. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an _A. anamensis_ tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be _Australopithecus afarensis_ (~3.9 million years ago).
> 
> It is still not clear if _Ardipithecus_ _ramidus _possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.
> 
> If _A. ramidus_ lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view _A. ramidus_ as the ancestral species that gave rise to _A. anamensis_. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."
> 
> Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism
> 
> 4.  How can bones determine how long someone lived?  I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did.  They were more perfect.  The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes.  We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen.  One has to be lucky.  What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
> 2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
> 3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
> 4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
> 5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
Click to expand...

What came first baby humans or adult humans?


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience.  I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you.  This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news?  Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity.  Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science.  Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  You can watch it on youtube.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work.  Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars.  Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries.  CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
> 2.  Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas.  I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained.  CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science.  What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories.  Why is this so?  This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first.  Darwin was able to publish it first.).  It also happened with catastrophism.  It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
> 3.  Show me how bipedalism evolved?  The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."
> 
> "In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named _Australopithecus ramidus_, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, _Ardipithecus_.12
> 
> Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, _Australopithecus anamensis_. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an _A. anamensis_ tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be _Australopithecus afarensis_ (~3.9 million years ago).
> 
> It is still not clear if _Ardipithecus_ _ramidus _possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.
> 
> If _A. ramidus_ lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view _A. ramidus_ as the ancestral species that gave rise to _A. anamensis_. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."
> 
> Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism
> 
> 4.  How can bones determine how long someone lived?  I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did.  They were more perfect.  The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes.  We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen.  One has to be lucky.  What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
> 2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
> 3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
> 4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
> 5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What came first baby humans or adult humans?
Click to expand...


Idiots ... - oh, sorry - I was wrong: Idiots evolved under the second main law of aerodynamics. So everyone should take care not to wash baby humans in very hot water because he's a an adult human conserved in alcohol.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience.  I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you.  This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news?  Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity.  Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science.  Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime.  The light is reflected but you can see it move forward.  You can watch it on youtube.  So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars.  It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work.  Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars.  Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries.  CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
> 2.  Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas.  I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained.  CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science.  What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories.  Why is this so?  This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first.  Darwin was able to publish it first.).  It also happened with catastrophism.  It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
> 3.  Show me how bipedalism evolved?  The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."
> 
> "In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named _Australopithecus ramidus_, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, _Ardipithecus_.12
> 
> Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, _Australopithecus anamensis_. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an _A. anamensis_ tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be _Australopithecus afarensis_ (~3.9 million years ago).
> 
> It is still not clear if _Ardipithecus_ _ramidus _possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.
> 
> If _A. ramidus_ lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view _A. ramidus_ as the ancestral species that gave rise to _A. anamensis_. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."
> 
> Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism
> 
> 4.  How can bones determine how long someone lived?  I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did.  They were more perfect.  The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes.  We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen.  One has to be lucky.  What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
> 2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
> 3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
> 4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
> 5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
> As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
> 2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
> 3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
> 4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
> 5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
> The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
Click to expand...


 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.

Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky

 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
> 2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
> 3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
> 4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
> 5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
> As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
> 2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
> 3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
> 4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
> 5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
> The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.
> 
> Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
> 
> 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
> 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
> 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
> 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.
Click to expand...

Do you realize some of those lights you think are stars are actually entire galaxies?  

NASA has released the largest and sharpest photograph ever made of the Andromeda Galaxy, the nearest spiral galaxy to ours that contains an estimated 1 trillion stars.






And you don't know who really believed in god back then.  It wasn't safe for a person to admit they didn't believe back then.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond
sealybobo

The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old - except we are all idiots and no one knows what he's speaking about. So what are you really discussing about? Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) for example spoke about that foggy lights in the sky could be islands of stars. 200 years before someone discovered the first galaxy. By the way: Who was this?
















Saint Francis, Third Planet Solar System, AD 2016


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond
sealybobo

And another question in this context: Who was the first human being who really understood the first time in history that stars and suns are the same?

_“Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”_
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

(Comment to this quote: The expression "starry heavens" [plural?] is written in the original text: "bestirnter Himmel" [singular!]. And what Kant saw in the sky were "stars"="Sterne". So the correct expression would had been "besternter Himmel" and not "bestirnter Himmel". Why used Kant this word? "Stirn" means "forehead". And what comes after our forehead? Our logos, isn't it?  )


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
> 2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again  shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
> 3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
> 4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
> 5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
> As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
> 2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
> 3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
> 4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
> 5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
> The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.
> 
> Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
> 
> 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
> 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
> 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
> 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.
Click to expand...

I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.


----------



## I amso IR

there4eyeM said:


> We should remember how our minds and our thinking are limited by our languages. This often leads to unsupportable assumptions and logic-loops.
> Since we cannot explain some things, especially something so important as existence, we force nouns and terms to fit our fears. The universe must have had a start, yet there must have been a precedent.
> What makes us insist on that? Since we know that we don't know, how can we ask  the question, "what was before the beginning?", when the very question posits an oxymoron? There can be no "before the beginning". Yet, human thinking cannot tolerate, nor indeed digest, such a thought.
> We need to let go more.
> Or, we can just use 'God' as a metaphor to help us along until we grow into a fuller understanding.



Prior to the beginning there was an ending which followed a beginning, etc, etc, etc, .......  The "bouncing ball" theory, which may or may not be valid. Hope that clears that up!


----------



## I amso IR

I think I will simply believe the outline of the bible. Why you ask? It is so much simpler and makes me personally feel better. Feel free to believe what you will. See how easy that was. Cheers


----------



## Militants

Goden and Buddha will exist.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is where we left off.  Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life.  Just busy with personal stuff.  Will reply again today  to keep up this "interesting" thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
> As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
> 2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
> 3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
> 4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
> 5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
> The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.
> 
> Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
> 
> 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
> 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
> 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
> 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
> This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
Click to expand...


Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.


----------



## james bond

To forkup and other atheists:  The part you keep forgetting is what you consider billions of years is off because of spacetime.  This has been demonstrated with two atomic clocks synchronized with each other and then one goes off into space.  The more distance you go away from earth, the more time will have slowed.  To be billions of years difference is a possibility.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old



mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.
Click to expand...


About 13.82 bilion years is the age of the universe - that's the last approximation after CERN found the Higgs-boson, what showed that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still not wrong. So the belief in this particle in the last decades was correct. If you have an idea to show to the phycicists in the world what's wrong with their calculation then start to study mathematics and physics. An alternative could be to start to work in a sawmill - what's in this  context as sensefull as to argue with the christian religion against anything what's true or on the way to find out what's true.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 13.82 bilion years is the age of the universe - that's the last approximation after CERN found the Higgs-boson, what showed that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still not wrong. So the belief in this particle in the last decades was correct. If you have an idea to show to the phycicists in the world what's wrong with their calculation then start to study mathematics and physics. An alternative could be to start to work in a sawmill - what's in this  context as sensefull as to argue with the christian religion against anything what's true or on the way to find out what's true.
Click to expand...

Zaan, this is perhaps the most confused post I have ever seen on this board. Nothing in this post of yours makes any sense. Are you drunk? In a sawmill?


----------



## Mudda

If a god existed, then we wouldn't be arguing about it, because it would be obvious to everyone.


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.


How do you figure that?


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 13.82 bilion years is the age of the universe - that's the last approximation after CERN found the Higgs-boson, what showed that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still not wrong. So the belief in this particle in the last decades was correct. If you have an idea to show to the phycicists in the world what's wrong with their calculation then start to study mathematics and physics. An alternative could be to start to work in a sawmill - what's in this  context as sensefull as to argue with the christian religion against anything what's true or on the way to find out what's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zaan, this is perhaps the most confused post I have ever seen on this board. Nothing in this post of yours makes any sense. Are you drunk? In a sawmill?
Click to expand...


He's a Christian - he will understand. You are a godignoring racist - you will never understand anything.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 13.82 bilion years is the age of the universe - that's the last approximation after CERN found the Higgs-boson, what showed that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still not wrong. So the belief in this particle in the last decades was correct. If you have an idea to show to the phycicists in the world what's wrong with their calculation then start to study mathematics and physics. An alternative could be to start to work in a sawmill - what's in this  context as sensefull as to argue with the christian religion against anything what's true or on the way to find out what's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zaan, this is perhaps the most confused post I have ever seen on this board. Nothing in this post of yours makes any sense. Are you drunk? In a sawmill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a Christian - he will understand. You are a godignoring racist - you will never understand anything.
Click to expand...

So you can't explain yourself so you try schoolyard insults. Geez, you nazis sure are a bunch of weenies.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 13.82 bilion years is the age of the universe - that's the last approximation after CERN found the Higgs-boson, what showed that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still not wrong. So the belief in this particle in the last decades was correct. If you have an idea to show to the phycicists in the world what's wrong with their calculation then start to study mathematics and physics. An alternative could be to start to work in a sawmill - what's in this  context as sensefull as to argue with the christian religion against anything what's true or on the way to find out what's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zaan, this is perhaps the most confused post I have ever seen on this board. Nothing in this post of yours makes any sense. Are you drunk? In a sawmill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a Christian - he will understand. You are a godignoring racist - you will never understand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't explain yourself so you try schoolyard insults. Geez, you nazis sure are a bunch of weenies.
Click to expand...


More exact: I'm a German who knows that you are a Nazi, because you argue exactly in the same wrotten, godless and racistic ways how the Nazis did once. You are an extreme fanatics.







_Virgo sola
Sola existente
En affuit angelus
Gabriel est
Est appalatus
Atque missus celitus
Clara facieque
Facieque dixit
Ave Maria

|:Cuncti simus Ave Maria
Concanentes Ave Maria:|

Clara facieque
Facieque dixit
Audite karissimi
En cocipies
Cocipies Maria
Ave Maria

|:Cuncti simus Ave Maria
Concanentes Ave Maria:|

Virgo sola existente
En affuit angelus
Gabriel est appalatus
Atque missus celitus
Clara facieque dixit
Ave Maria
Clara facieque dixit
|:Ave Maria:|

|:Cuncti simus Ave Maria
Concanentes Ave Maria:|_


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About 13.82 bilion years is the age of the universe - that's the last approximation after CERN found the Higgs-boson, what showed that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still not wrong. So the belief in this particle in the last decades was correct. If you have an idea to show to the phycicists in the world what's wrong with their calculation then start to study mathematics and physics. An alternative could be to start to work in a sawmill - what's in this  context as sensefull as to argue with the christian religion against anything what's true or on the way to find out what's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zaan, this is perhaps the most confused post I have ever seen on this board. Nothing in this post of yours makes any sense. Are you drunk? In a sawmill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a Christian - he will understand. You are a godignoring racist - you will never understand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't explain yourself so you try schoolyard insults. Geez, you nazis sure are a bunch of weenies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More exact: I'm a German who knows that you are a Nazi, because you argue exactly in the same wrotten, godless and racistic ways how the Nazis did once. You are an extreme fanatics.
Click to expand...

Says the nazi who's trying to hide among us normal people. You don't fool anyone here, pretending to be a Christian, since you get everything wrong every time you open your mouth. So stay in hiding and stfu, the Wiesenthal guys are on the lookout for you.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> About 13.82 bilion years is the age of the universe - that's the last approximation after CERN found the Higgs-boson, what showed that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still not wrong. So the belief in this particle in the last decades was correct. If you have an idea to show to the phycicists in the world what's wrong with their calculation then start to study mathematics and physics. An alternative could be to start to work in a sawmill - what's in this  context as sensefull as to argue with the christian religion against anything what's true or on the way to find out what's true.
> 
> 
> 
> Zaan, this is perhaps the most confused post I have ever seen on this board. Nothing in this post of yours makes any sense. Are you drunk? In a sawmill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a Christian - he will understand. You are a godignoring racist - you will never understand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't explain yourself so you try schoolyard insults. Geez, you nazis sure are a bunch of weenies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More exact: I'm a German who knows that you are a Nazi, because you argue exactly in the same wrotten, godless and racistic ways how the Nazis did once. You are an extreme fanatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the nazi who's trying to hide among us normal people. You don't fool anyone here, pretending to be a Christian, since you get everything wrong every time you open your mouth. So stay in hiding and stfu, the Wiesenthal guys are on the lookout for you.
Click to expand...


Childish nonsense what you try to do here, Nazi. You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis. And I know very well that you are much more dangerous than the Nazis of the past were. Lots of the people in the past  were not able to know what will happen - we know. Your black sun - the black hole of your mind -  will even kill you yourselve, racistic idiot, completly one.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zaan, this is perhaps the most confused post I have ever seen on this board. Nothing in this post of yours makes any sense. Are you drunk? In a sawmill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's a Christian - he will understand. You are a godignoring racist - you will never understand anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't explain yourself so you try schoolyard insults. Geez, you nazis sure are a bunch of weenies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More exact: I'm a German who knows that you are a Nazi, because you argue exactly in the same wrotten, godless and racistic ways how the Nazis did once. You are an extreme fanatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the nazi who's trying to hide among us normal people. You don't fool anyone here, pretending to be a Christian, since you get everything wrong every time you open your mouth. So stay in hiding and stfu, the Wiesenthal guys are on the lookout for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Childish nonsense what you try to do here, Nazi. You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis. And I know very well that you are much more dangerous than the Nazis of the past were. Lots of the people in the past  were not able to know what will happen - we know.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that you murdered most of your family, you were just out to save your own skin. Nazis are like that.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a Christian - he will understand. You are a godignoring racist - you will never understand anything.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't explain yourself so you try schoolyard insults. Geez, you nazis sure are a bunch of weenies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More exact: I'm a German who knows that you are a Nazi, because you argue exactly in the same wrotten, godless and racistic ways how the Nazis did once. You are an extreme fanatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the nazi who's trying to hide among us normal people. You don't fool anyone here, pretending to be a Christian, since you get everything wrong every time you open your mouth. So stay in hiding and stfu, the Wiesenthal guys are on the lookout for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Childish nonsense what you try to do here, Nazi. You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis. And I know very well that you are much more dangerous than the Nazis of the past were. Lots of the people in the past  were not able to know what will happen - we know.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't doubt that you murdered most of your family, you were just out to save your own skin. Nazis are like that.
Click to expand...


no comment


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't explain yourself so you try schoolyard insults. Geez, you nazis sure are a bunch of weenies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More exact: I'm a German who knows that you are a Nazi, because you argue exactly in the same wrotten, godless and racistic ways how the Nazis did once. You are an extreme fanatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the nazi who's trying to hide among us normal people. You don't fool anyone here, pretending to be a Christian, since you get everything wrong every time you open your mouth. So stay in hiding and stfu, the Wiesenthal guys are on the lookout for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Childish nonsense what you try to do here, Nazi. You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis. And I know very well that you are much more dangerous than the Nazis of the past were. Lots of the people in the past  were not able to know what will happen - we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't doubt that you murdered most of your family, you were just out to save your own skin. Nazis are like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment
Click to expand...

About time you shut the fuck up.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
> As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
> 2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
> 3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
> 4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
> 5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
> The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.
> 
> Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
> 
> 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
> 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
> 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
> 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
> This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
Click to expand...


First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 13.82 bilion years is the age of the universe - that's the last approximation after CERN found the Higgs-boson, what showed that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still not wrong. So the belief in this particle in the last decades was correct. If you have an idea to show to the phycicists in the world what's wrong with their calculation then start to study mathematics and physics. An alternative could be to start to work in a sawmill - what's in this  context as sensefull as to argue with the christian religion against anything what's true or on the way to find out what's true.
Click to expand...


At least, you admit that it's "still" not wrong.  So, now it's 13.82 billion years instead of 13.7?  Billions of years is probably wrong because it did not take too long to discover the Higgs Boson.  So, let's look at the HB.  HB is the summation (end) of standard particle physics, not the beginning of something new.  Is it the culmination of all of our knowledge about the standard model?  Have humans conquored the standard model world?  Not exactly, but in theory they have.explained how our main forces work.  We can do the math on it.

What I present to you as evidence of God is the 12x12 addition table or matrix.  The others such as 10x10 are weak.  12x12 is the one true square number in the universe and is significant throughout history and nature.






Not only is math something we invented, but it's found everywhere in our natural world.


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
> As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
> 2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
> 3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
> 4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
> 5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
> The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.
> 
> Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
> 
> 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
> 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
> 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
> 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
> This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
Click to expand...

ment supernova's not black holes


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> More exact: I'm a German who knows that you are a Nazi, because you argue exactly in the same wrotten, godless and racistic ways how the Nazis did once. You are an extreme fanatics.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the nazi who's trying to hide among us normal people. You don't fool anyone here, pretending to be a Christian, since you get everything wrong every time you open your mouth. So stay in hiding and stfu, the Wiesenthal guys are on the lookout for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Childish nonsense what you try to do here, Nazi. You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis. And I know very well that you are much more dangerous than the Nazis of the past were. Lots of the people in the past  were not able to know what will happen - we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't doubt that you murdered most of your family, you were just out to save your own skin. Nazis are like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About time you shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


no comment, Nazi


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the nazi who's trying to hide among us normal people. You don't fool anyone here, pretending to be a Christian, since you get everything wrong every time you open your mouth. So stay in hiding and stfu, the Wiesenthal guys are on the lookout for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Childish nonsense what you try to do here, Nazi. You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis. And I know very well that you are much more dangerous than the Nazis of the past were. Lots of the people in the past  were not able to know what will happen - we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't doubt that you murdered most of your family, you were just out to save your own skin. Nazis are like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About time you shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
Click to expand...

Projecting on me isn't a comment? Are you more confused than usual? You should just turn yourself in.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Childish nonsense what you try to do here, Nazi. You know very well that a big part of my family was murdered from Nazis. And I know very well that you are much more dangerous than the Nazis of the past were. Lots of the people in the past  were not able to know what will happen - we know.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that you murdered most of your family, you were just out to save your own skin. Nazis are like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About time you shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting on me isn't a comment? Are you more confused than usual? You should just turn yourself in.
Click to expand...


no comment, Nazi


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that you murdered most of your family, you were just out to save your own skin. Nazis are like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About time you shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting on me isn't a comment? Are you more confused than usual? You should just turn yourself in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
Click to expand...

A Jew got your tongue?


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> no comment
> 
> 
> 
> About time you shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting on me isn't a comment? Are you more confused than usual? You should just turn yourself in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Jew got your tongue?
Click to expand...


This sentence  is not translatable.  What do you like to know from me, Nazi?


----------



## BreezeWood

zaangalewa said:


> This sentence is not translatable. What do you like to know from me, Nazi?



(excluding MUDDA) -


what religion were the +90% German's that voted for H and of those how few relied on the bible for their guidance ....

.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> About time you shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting on me isn't a comment? Are you more confused than usual? You should just turn yourself in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Jew got your tongue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sentence  is not translatable.  What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
Click to expand...

Why don't you turn yourself in as the nazi that you are?


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting on me isn't a comment? Are you more confused than usual? You should just turn yourself in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no comment, Nazi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Jew got your tongue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sentence  is not translatable.  What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you turn yourself in as the nazi that you are?
Click to expand...


This sentence  is not translatable too. So again: What do you like to know from me, Nazi?


----------



## zaangalewa

BreezeWood said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is not translatable. What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (excluding MUDDA) -
> 
> 
> what religion were the +90% German's that voted for H and of those how few relied on the bible for their guidance ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...


For Hitlers NSDAP voted about 33% of the Germans in the last free elections in November 1932. The worst results had the NSDAP in Berlin and in the catholic regions of Germany. The best result for the NSDAP was in the East of Germany - in the regions where today is Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia.


----------



## IndependantAce

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


That's a good point. I don't see how empirical science can ever explain why the physical universe exists; only trace things further and further back. Just like you could never explain how or why a computer was built simply by examining the internal parts.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the grind.
> 
> 1.  Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000.  How right was your astronomy?
> 
> Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances?  What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence.  They used lightyears as distance.  Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct?  This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon.  That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down?  The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old.  When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy.  Cosmology is more philosophy than science.
> 
> To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them,  not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe.  Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve."  However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain.  Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness."  The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power.  Jesus loved the sun and the moon.  There is more, but I'll stop here.
> 
> 2.  So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars.  However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth.  If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed.  This isn't based on time and distance of stars.
> 
> 3.  I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all.  We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.
> 
> 4.  So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?
> 
> 5.  I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy.  Another is the moon's recession and age.  Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit.  If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees.  The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations.  What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon.  If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
> As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
> 2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
> 3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
> 4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
> 5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
> The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.
> 
> Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
> 
> 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
> 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
> 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
> 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
> This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
Click to expand...


1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.

"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."

A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research

 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.


----------



## BreezeWood

zaangalewa said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is not translatable. What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (excluding MUDDA) -
> 
> 
> what religion were the +90% German's that voted for H and of those how few relied on the bible for their guidance ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Hitlers NSDAP voted about 33% of the Germans in the last free elections in November 1932. The worst results had the NSDAP in Berlin and in the catholic regions of Germany. The best result for the NSDAP was in the East of Germany - in the regions where today is Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia.
Click to expand...



for may reasons the 90% is common and a fact of history -




> Adolf Hitler becomes president of Germany - Aug 19, 1934 - HISTORY.com
> 
> But that was not enough for Hitler either. In February 1933, Hitler blamed a devastating Reichstag fire on the communists ....
> 
> A plebiscite vote was held on August 19. Intimidation, and fear of the communists, brought Hitler a 90 percent majority. He was now, for all intents and purposes, dictator.



_*

The worst results had the NSDAP in Berlin ...*_

- those damn LIBERALS ....



playing the commie card - or - business as usual, which one zaang or are they one in the same.

.


----------



## zaangalewa

BreezeWood said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sentence is not translatable. What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (excluding MUDDA) -
> 
> 
> what religion were the +90% German's that voted for H and of those how few relied on the bible for their guidance ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Hitlers NSDAP voted about 33% of the Germans in the last free elections in November 1932. The worst results had the NSDAP in Berlin and in the catholic regions of Germany. The best result for the NSDAP was in the East of Germany - in the regions where today is Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for may reasons the 90% is common and a fact of history -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf Hitler becomes president of Germany - Aug 19, 1934 - HISTORY.com
> 
> But that was not enough for Hitler either. In February 1933, Hitler blamed a devastating Reichstag fire on the communists ....
> 
> A plebiscite vote was held on August 19. Intimidation, and fear of the communists, brought Hitler a 90 percent majority. He was now, for all intents and purposes, dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> 
> The worst results had the NSDAP in Berlin ...*_
> 
> - those damn LIBERALS ....]
Click to expand...


And where Catholics lived.




> playing the commie card - or - business as usual, which one zaang or are they one in the same.
> 
> .



I have the feeling your are very confused. In 11/1932 about 1/3 of the Germans voted for the NSDAP - most of this people protested against an economy system what had caused the great depression. Hitler used this chance and within only one year he transformed Germany into something what even today no one seems to be able to understand. And the sympathy of the world was with Hitler in the first years. Not many people in the world protested against the concentration camp Dachau, which the Nazis created immediatelly in 1933. This was the prototpye of all german concentration and extermination camps. Not many protested when the Nazis made racistic laws against Jews in 1935. Everywhere in the world existed racistic laws in those days. And everyone came to the Olympic Games in 1936. The catholic church tried to criticize Hitler in 1937 in the encyclica "Mit brennender Sorge" - the only encyclica which ever was written in german language. They tried for example to  introduce a right for a spiritual support of prisoners, so priests, rabbis and others would had been able to take a look to their imprisoned people. But no one else supported this. On the other side also lots of people tried to murder Hitler - very astonishing, because  to try to kill a leader of the state was without any tradition in our country. Still today I'm not able to understand how he survived more than 40 serios tryings to kill him. In 1938 Hitler and Stalin - I call them the right and left jawbone of the devil - together started world war 2 with the so called Molotow-Ribbentrop-Pakt. The USA decided to work together with the devil Stalin against the devil Hitler - was this a christian decision? I would say "yes". Was it a christain decision when Hitler gave to everyone who married instead of the bible his book "Mein Kampf"? I would say "no". And I would say to try to see in the Nazis a catholic movement is as  absurde as to try to  see in Stalin an orthodox movement, or in the english allies a protestant movement. What we all can see easily is a broken world.

But let me go to the present time. In Europe exists for example an umbrella  organisation of conservative parties. The german conservative Party CDU - the party of Mrs. Merkel, our chanellor - was not allowed to be a member of this Club because they are Christians and in the middle of the society - not far right. So England (= the english speaking world) - the so called "torries" there - supported a political party with the name "AfD" and helped this conservative german protesters - although in this political party are lots of Nazis. I was very astonished when I noticed this because no one in the AfD had ever done anything for Germany in this moment of history. Now Mrs. Merkel made some mistakes - under influence of the anglo-american world politics - and the AfD got more mighty. So now 10% of all Catholics here have a  tendancy to vote for this party - 13% of all protestants have a tendancy to vote for this party - and 19% of people without religious confession have this tendancy. I guess the relation 24 was also in 1932 existing. So I would say in 1932 voted 12 Million people in Germany for Hitler. In this case about 6-7 milllion Christians voted for Hitler. 35 million people voted. If you  are right and 90% were Christians then 31,5 million Christians voted. So about 20%-25% of all Christians (Protestants and Catholics) voted in 1932 for Hitler what means 75%-80% of the Christians were not for Hitler. Confused? Me too. But maybe it's a better confusion now.


PS: In the Video above the following line is wrong: "_Ich halte sie selig umfangen und sie kennt mein heißes Verlangen das Brennen erwacht_". It has to be "_Ich halte sie selig umfangen und sie kennt mein heißes Verlangen, das brennend erwacht._"


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
> As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
> 2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
> 3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
> 4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
> 5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
> The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.
> 
> Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
> 
> 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
> 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
> 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
> 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
> This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
> 
> "... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
> 
> A Young Moon
> The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
Click to expand...

K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.


----------



## BreezeWood

zaangalewa said:


> The catholic church tried to criticize Hitler in 1937 in the encyclica "Mit brennender Sorge"











zaangalewa said:


> I have the feeling your are very confused.



your account of history reminds me of an Ostrich and why history repeats itself.




zaangalewa said:


> And I would say to try to see in the Nazis a catholic movement is as absurde as to try to see in Stalin an orthodox movement



you are showing your hand zaang, Stalin was placed in power through the abuses of religion where the above photo demonstrates the abuse of religion being used by both the State and the Clergy as is the case today being the same for the biblicists - zaang.

.


----------



## zaangalewa

BreezeWood said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The catholic church tried to criticize Hitler in 1937 in the encyclica "Mit brennender Sorge"
Click to expand...


What do you see on this picture? I see Hitler speaking with one of his marionettes, the leader of the Nazi-organisation "Deutsche Christen" (="German Christians"). This is Ludwig Müller,  isn't it? The Nazis were excellent propgagandists. The organisation "Deutsche Christen"  undermined the protestants in Germany. They tried for example to eliminate the Old Testament and they tried to transform "Jesus" (=the son of a german soldier who served in the roman army) in a kind of germanic demigod, who fought with a sword in the hand against Jews. Absurde ideas. Dietrich Bonhoffer and his "Bekennende Kirche" spoke a ban against this organsition.




> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the feeling your are very confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your account of history reminds me of an Ostrich and why history repeats itself.
Click to expand...


Because Hitler tried to erase all Jews biologically from this panet you try now to erase all Christians spiritually from this planet? ... Whatever. ... History is for me more a kind of natural law not a game. I would say: Panta rei - Nothing repeats in history. And I would say: God is always new. On the other side: ignorant and agressive characters make ignorant and agressive decisions - and ignorant and agressive decisions lead to an ignorant an agressive world with a growing ignorant and agressive mentality.



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would say to try to see in the Nazis a catholic movement is as absurde as to try to see in Stalin an orthodox movement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are showing your hand zaang, Stalin was placed in power through the abuses of religion where the above photo demonstrates the abuse of religion being used by both the State and the Clergy as is the case today being the same for the biblicists - zaang.
Click to expand...


Stalin was a criminal mass-murderer - maybe even much more worse than Hitler.


----------



## BreezeWood

zaangalewa said:


> What do you see on this picture? I see Hitler speaking with one of his marionettes, the leader of the Nazi-organisation "Deutsche Christen" (="German Christians"). This is Ludwig Müller, isn't it?



are you serious   that is Pope Pius XII shaking hands with H ....





zaangalewa said:


> Because Hitler tried to erase all Jews biologically from this panet you try now to erase all Christians spiritually from this planet? ... Whatever.



the jews, islamist and christians are peas in the same pod, without religion and are a threat to humanity.




zaangalewa said:


> History is for me more a kind of natural law not a game. I would say: Panta rei - Nothing repeats in history. And I would say: God is always new. On the other side: ignorant and agressive characters make ignorant and agressive decisions - and ignorant and agressive decisions lead to an ignorant an agressive world with a growing ignorant and agressive mentality.



the latter half describes organized (scriptural) religion in a nut shell, for nuts ....

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
> As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
> 2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
> 3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
> 4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
> 5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
> The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.
> 
> Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
> 
> 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
> 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
> 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
> 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
> This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
> 
> "... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
> 
> A Young Moon
> The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
Click to expand...

*The Creationist Arguments*
I don't know who first brought up the age of the Earth-moon system as a pro-creationist argument. But the first example I am aware of is Barnes (1982, 1984). Barnes says, "_It has been known for 25 years that the earth-moon system cannot be that old_", and assuring us that "_Celestial mechanics proves that the moon cannot be as old as 4.5 billion years_", goes on to quote the last sentence from Slichter's (1963) paper, "_The time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem_" (in fact, Barnes should not have capitalized the "T" since this is a sentence fragment, not a full sentence, but in this case the oversight is inconsequential). It is noteworthy that Barnes is happy to quote a paper already 19 years old in 1982, and 21 years old in 1984, yet despite a research physics background, declines to bother researching anything post-Slichter. If he had, he would have found Lambeck (1980), a major work which clearly indicated the real nature of Slichter's dilemma (or even Stacey, 1977, which already showed the conflict between Slichter's theoretical dilemma and the paleontological evidence available at the time). And, of course, Kirk Hansen's 1982 paper predates Barnes' 1984 reiteration by two years, yet is ignored despite being recognized even then as a major step forward. Barnes shows the same kind of sloppy and lazy approach to "research" that permeates young-Earth creationism, although his is a particularly egregious case (as it also was for his arguments concerning Earth's magnetic field).

DeYoung (1992) offers his own model. Actually, he offers an equation. DeYoung asserts that the rate of change of the lunar distance as a function of time must be proportional to the inverse 6th power of the lunar distance (presumably because the lunar tidal amplitude is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance, and the tidal acceleration is proportional to the square of the amplitude, though DeYoung does not say this). He then runs some numbers in the equation, and concludes with remarkable poise that he has demonstrated a maximum possible tidal age for the Earth-moon system of 1.4 billion years. The same calculation can be found in Stacey (1977), with reference to more precise versions. They all get about the same answer as DeYoung, and there is no doubt but that what DeYoung did he did right. However, if you do the "wrong" problem, you may not get the "right" answer! As Stacey pointed out (Stacey, 1977, pages 102-103) it makes more sense to assume that the oceanic tidal dissipation was smaller in the past, which would have the effect of making the calculation that of a _minimum_ age, as opposed to the _maximum_ age proposed by DeYoung. But, of course, we are comparing DeYoung (1992) with Stacey (1977), a gap of 15 years (it's nice to see that DeYoung, like Barnes, is keeping up with the tempo of current research). That gap includes Lambeck (1980) and Hansen (1982) (wherein it was demonstrated that a 4.5 billion years age was compatible). Granted that DeYoung (1992) wrote before the 1994 papers of Kagan & Maslova or Touma & Wisdom, which are directly contradictory to his results. However, Hansen's (1980) results also directly contradict DeYoung, but come 12 years before. This observation does not inspire confidence in the value of DeYoung's one-equation model for the evolution of the lunar orbit. But, as made clear by Bills & Ray (1999), the constant of proportionality, which Stacey suggests is not constant, is in fact a ratio of factors that represent dissipation, and deformation. It is clear that neither of these can be constant, and once that is understood, we can see clearly that DeYoung simply did the wrong thing right, and curiously wound up with a correct form of the wrong answer.

Walter Brown (Brown, 1995) presents essentially the same model as DeYoung. I have seen only the online technical note, but not the printed book. Unfortunate, for the equations do not appear on the webpage, despite being referenced as if they were there. However, Brown does offer the quick-Basic source code for his program that calculates the minimum age of the Earth-moon system. His equations are there, and he seems to be using the inverse 5.5 power of the radius rather than the inverse 6th power used by DeYoung (Brown's usage here is consistent with the equation given by Bills & Ray, 1999; whether one chooses to use the inverse 6 or inverse 5.5 power seems an issue of model dependence). Otherwise, Brown's approach appears to be quite the same as DeYoung's, and subject to exactly the same criticism. He ignores the time variability of dissipation and deformation. It is perhaps humorously ironic that both DeYoung and Brown fail, because they are implicitly making an improper uniformitarian assumption (the constancy of dissipation and deformation), which evolutionists have learned to avoid.

*Conclusions*
I don't know if there are other, "authoritative" creationist sources for the "speedy moon" argument. But if there are, it is unlikely that their arguments presented differ much from those seen here. I spent quite a bit more time reviewing the actual science of the Earth-moon tidal interaction because once it is well developed, the flaw in the creationist arguments becomes so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to refute them. The most remarkable aspect of this, I think, is the somebody like DeYoung, who certainly has legitimate qualifications (a PhD in physics from Iowa State University), would offer up such a one-equation model as if it was actually definitive. That kind of thing works as a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, to get the order of magnitude, or a first approximation for the right answer, but it should have been clear to an _unbiased_ observer that it could never be a legitimate_realistic_ model. It is also of considerable interest that both DeYoung and Brown published their refutations of evolution only _after_ evolution had already refuted their refutations! Barnes didn't do all that much better, having overlooked Hansen (1982) for two years. My own conclusion is that my intuitive expectations have been fulfilled, and creation "science" has lived up to its reputation of being either pre-falsified, or easy to falsify once the argument is evident.

As for the _real_ science, remember that science is not a static pursuit, and the Earth-moon tidal evolution is not an entirely solved system. There is a lot that we know, and we do know a lot more than we did even 20 years ago. But even if we don't know everything, there are still some arguments which we can definitely rule out. A 10,000 year age (or anything like it) definitely falls in that category, and can be ruled out both by theory and practice.
The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System
This is the article I got this from it's heavily referenced.
Your article has 2 references.
This is an exert from a conference that 1 of those referenced autors attended
'During the question period, the first response was from John Baumgardner. He began by saying that as a committed Christian he was insulted by Dalrymple's characterization of creationists. He expressed his disappointment that the AGU had not invited speakers to present creationist arguments. His exchanges with Dalrymple became quite heated. This made me apprehensive that he would later come after me because in my presentation I would use a slide making fun of one of Baumgardner's sillier ideas — that giant whirlpools on the continents allowed dinosaurs and other large animals to survive until late in Noah's flood, thus explaining why their fossils occur high in the geologic column.'
Geologists Explain Evolution | NCSE
This is a short bio of the second referenced author, note where he works.
Dr. Danny R. Faulkner earned graduate degrees in physics and astronomy and taught at the University of South Carolina Lancaster for over 26 years. Dr. Faulkner is a member of the Creation Research Society and also serves as the editor of the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_. He has written more than a hundred papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals.
*The way I see it, in order for your worldview to be correct there has to be a massive scientific conspiracy to specifacly disprove a young earth. Entire branches of history, antropoligy, math, astronomy, chemistry, paleontoligy, astronomy, chemistry, bioligy, physics had to be falsified on purpose. Do you find that possible, logical or plausible? I personally think it way more logical that Creatonism is completly wrong.*


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> To forkup and other atheists:  The part you keep forgetting is what you consider billions of years is off because of spacetime.  This has been demonstrated with two atomic clocks synchronized with each other and then one goes off into space.  The more distance you go away from earth, the more time will have slowed.  To be billions of years difference is a possibility.


No it isn't.
Special Relativity  says that a surprising thing happens when you move through space-time, especially when your speed relative to other objects is close to the speed of light. Time goes slower for you than for the people you left behind. You won't notice this effect until you return to those stationary people.
Say you were 15 years old when you left Earth in a spacecraft traveling at about 99.5% of the speed of light (which is much faster than we can achieve now), and celebrated only five birthdays during your space voyage. When you get home at the age of 20, you would find that all your classmates were 65 years old, retired, and enjoying their grandchildren! Because time passed more slowly for you, you will have experienced only five years of life, while your classmates will have experienced a full 50 years. So our relative speed to stars is variable and not nearly the speed of light and even if it was there's no way it would acount for a margin of error in the billions, furthermore there's no reason special relativity would make us see FUTURE events now, so it doesn't even come close to explaining why we would be observing supernova's. Like I said the process take millions of years at a minimum. And take into account the light of that explosion takes time to reach us too.


----------



## zaangalewa

BreezeWood said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you see on this picture? I see Hitler speaking with one of his marionettes, the leader of the Nazi-organisation "Deutsche Christen" (="German Christians"). This is Ludwig Müller, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you serious   that is Pope Pius XII shaking hands with H ....
Click to expand...


Such pictures are existing under the title "False Catholics" in the Internet. although they have nothing to do with the holy catholic church.






hmmm ...






... But you are right .The man in your picture is not the "bishop of the empire" (="Reichsbischof") Ludwig Müller.

You call him Pius XII but this is Pius XII:






By the way: Even if a picture of a Pope with a devil would exist - what would this picture tell?

... Ah - got it :






It's nuntius Torregrossa. This was in 1933. The Nazis used this picture for their politic Propaganda.

The text is:

-----
*A festive moment at the laying of the foundation stone for the "house of the german arts".

The papal Nuntius Vassallo di Torregrossa speaks to the leader:

"I did not understand you. But a long time I tried to do so. Today I understand you".

And every german Catholic understands today Adolf Hitler and votes on 9/11 ... ah sorry 11/12 ... for Hitler with:

"Yes".*
-----

Election propaganda, that's all. Could be by the way interesting to know what Nuntius Alberto Vassallo di Torregrossa really understood. Hitler tried to find something how to motivate Catholics to vote for him. Could also be interesting to know what you had voted in 1932 or 1933 if you had been one of the 31.5 from 35 million voters in Germany in this days and you had only the knowledge of this time and not the knowledeg of today. In the catholic regions of Germany and in Berlin Hitler had his worst and not his best results.


----------



## zaangalewa

BreezeWood said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Hitler tried to erase all Jews biologically from this panet you try now to erase all Christians spiritually from this planet? ... Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the jews, islamist and christians are peas in the same pod, without religion and are a threat to humanity. ...
Click to expand...


What about to bring them all into concentration gulags in guantanamo and to kill this inhuman bastards like insects with gas - so they are not able to become Nazis, which could kill you? Or what about to build a hospital for hundreds of millions english speaking people, because they are the most insane mad world within this totally mad world of hundreds of most insane nations?

What are your rules? The most simple letter "I" ... except your remote controllers decide something else with their own "I"? Lots of great humanists on Earth were Jews and Christians. I'm not even sure wether real humanism could become real without the belief in god - although not everyone is able to believe in god.


_Va, pensiero, sull’ali dorate;
va, ti posa sui clivi, sui colli,
ove olezzano tepide e molli
l’aure dolci del suolo natal!

Del Giordano le rive saluta,
di Sionne le torri atterrate…
O mia patria sì bella e perduta!
O membranza sì cara e fatal!

Arpa d’or dei fatidici vati,
perché muta dal salice pendi?
Le memorie nel petto riaccendi,
ci favella del tempo che fu!

O simile di Solima ai fati
traggi un suono di crudo lamento,
o t’ispiri il Signore un concento
che ne infonda al patire virtù._


----------



## BreezeWood

. I am not saying catholics, you are I am saying it was biblicist that were the core supporters who voted overwhelmingly for AH and catholics were among them.





zaangalewa said:


> I'm not even sure wether real humanism could become real without the belief in god - although not everyone is able to believe in god.




if it were not possible then there would be no test for the goal of Remission where uncertainty indubitably would be a qualification for Admission.

a naturalist may conclude there is a God but the conclusion is irrelevant in fact to the existence the naturalist is able to physically witness as being a path to the Everlasting as a prescription offered by the Almighty without a specific reason for its existence.

_*

without the belief in god ...*_

you seem to be doing just fine with your scriptural belief of Jesus your christ.

.


----------



## zaangalewa

BreezeWood said:


> . I am not saying catholics, you are I am saying it was biblicist that were the core supporters who voted overwhelmingly for AH and catholics were among them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even sure wether real humanism could become real without the belief in god - although not everyone is able to believe in god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if it were not possible then there would be no test for the goal of Remission where uncertainty indubitably would be a qualification for Admission.
> 
> a naturalist may conclude there is a God but the conclusion is irrelevant in fact to the existence the naturalist is able to physically witness as being a path to the Everlasting as a prescription offered by the Almighty without a specific reason for its existence.
> 
> _*
> 
> without the belief in god ...*_
> 
> you seem to be doing just fine with your scriptural belief of Jesus your christ.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Sorry - but what said you here now? I don't understand what you like to say. I my ears what you try to tell me sounds absurde. I'm a Catholic and I'm a German. It's easy to know what Catholics believe and in case of Germany the history of Germany is not only the history between the years 1933-1945. If Hitler met anyone - completly independent who he met - what says this about the person he met? Nothing, isn't it? If you like to know something about the dictator Hitler then you have to study who were the people around him and who fullfilled his secret and/or criminal orders. But why is this important for you? Because you like to attack Catholics like Hitler attacked Poland?


----------



## zaangalewa

BreezeWood said:


> ...



By the way: What shows this picture?  What is the bad deed you see on this picture? Who are this people and what had happended there? What do you think is important in this context? Your proudness that your nation was a winner of world  war 1+2 makes not any evil deed better what had happened during this time and afterwards and what's happening now in the world.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way: What shows this picture?  What is the bad deed you see on this picture? Who are this people and what had happended there? What do you think is important in this context? Your proudness that your nation was a winner of world  war 1+2 makes not any evil deed better what had happened during this time and afterwards and what's happening now in the world.
Click to expand...

You fucking krauts deserved to get your ass kicked.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way: What shows this picture?  What is the bad deed you see on this picture? Who are this people and what had happended there? What do you think is important in this context? Your proudness that your nation was a winner of world  war 1+2 makes not any evil deed better what had happened during this time and afterwards and what's happening now in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking krauts deserved to get your ass kicked.
Click to expand...


The USA sold the East of Europe to the Stalinists. That's the negative side of the american pragmatism. For the grandparents of the artist Jamala as well the Germans and Russians and Americans too were a curse.  I find it very interesting that Jamala wan the ESC with the song "1944". And I find it very interesting that a Nazi like you attacks me and deletes her message. You accept with your own structural Nazism that the USA wan a war against Germany but lost this war against the Nazis. I don't know what your parents and grandparents would say to you.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way: What shows this picture?  What is the bad deed you see on this picture? Who are this people and what had happended there? What do you think is important in this context? Your proudness that your nation was a winner of world  war 1+2 makes not any evil deed better what had happened during this time and afterwards and what's happening now in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking krauts deserved to get your ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA sold the East of Europe to the Stalinists. That's the negative side of the american pragmatism. For the grandparents of the artist Jamala as well the Germans and Russians and Americans too were a curse.  I find it very interesting that Jamala wan the ESC with the song "1944". And I find it very interesting that a Nazi like you attacks me and deletes her message. You accept with your own structural Nazism that the USA wan a war against Germany but lost this war against the Nazis. I don't know what your parents and grandparents would say to you.
Click to expand...

Russia took half of your pathetic country by force. After all you douche nazis burned half of theirs. How you can support nazis is beyond me. just shut the fuck up and go away, you disgust me.


----------



## Mudda

zaangalewa said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Hitler tried to erase all Jews biologically from this panet you try now to erase all Christians spiritually from this planet? ... Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the jews, islamist and christians are peas in the same pod, without religion and are a threat to humanity. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about to bring them all into concentration gulags in guantanamo and to kill this inhuman bastards like insects with gas - so they are not able to become Nazis, which could kill you? Or what about to build a hospital for hundreds of millions english speaking people, because they are the most insane mad world within this totally mad world of hundreds of most insane nations?
> 
> What are your rules? The most simple letter "I" ... except your remote controllers decide something else with their own "I"? Lots of great humanists on Earth were Jews and Christians. I'm not even sure wether real humanism could become real without the belief in god - although not everyone is able to believe in god.
Click to expand...

You don't even make any sense, "because they are the most insane mad world within this totally mad world of hundreds of most insane nations?" 
You should seek some help with your mental delusions.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way: What shows this picture?  What is the bad deed you see on this picture? Who are this people and what had happended there? What do you think is important in this context? Your proudness that your nation was a winner of world  war 1+2 makes not any evil deed better what had happened during this time and afterwards and what's happening now in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fucking krauts deserved to get your ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USA sold the East of Europe to the Stalinists. That's the negative side of the american pragmatism. For the grandparents of the artist Jamala as well the Germans and Russians and Americans too were a curse.  I find it very interesting that Jamala wan the ESC with the song "1944". And I find it very interesting that a Nazi like you attacks me and deletes her message. You accept with your own structural Nazism that the USA wan a war against Germany but lost this war against the Nazis. I don't know what your parents and grandparents would say to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia took half of your pathetic country by force. After all you douche nazis burned half of theirs. How you can support nazis is beyond me. just shut the fuck up and go away, you disgust me.
Click to expand...


Russians and Germans don't hate each other and the East of Europe loves the USA and their promise "freedom." Nevertheless the USA gave in world war 2 the East of Europe and a big part of Germany to Stalin. And for the grandparents of the artist Jamala (and other human beings under the influence of Stalin) meant Stalin persecution, displacement and death. If you like to think about or not changes nothing in such problems, Nazi.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Hitler tried to erase all Jews biologically from this panet you try now to erase all Christians spiritually from this planet? ... Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the jews, islamist and christians are peas in the same pod, without religion and are a threat to humanity. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about to bring them all into concentration gulags in guantanamo and to kill this inhuman bastards like insects with gas - so they are not able to become Nazis, which could kill you? Or what about to build a hospital for hundreds of millions english speaking people, because they are the most insane mad world within this totally mad world of hundreds of most insane nations?
> 
> What are your rules? The most simple letter "I" ... except your remote controllers decide something else with their own "I"? Lots of great humanists on Earth were Jews and Christians. I'm not even sure wether real humanism could become real without the belief in god - although not everyone is able to believe in god.
> 
> 
> _Va, pensiero, sull’ali dorate;
> va, ti posa sui clivi, sui colli,
> ove olezzano tepide e molli
> l’aure dolci del suolo natal!
> 
> Del Giordano le rive saluta,
> di Sionne le torri atterrate…
> O mia patria sì bella e perduta!
> O membranza sì cara e fatal!
> 
> Arpa d’or dei fatidici vati,
> perché muta dal salice pendi?
> Le memorie nel petto riaccendi,
> ci favella del tempo che fu!
> 
> O simile di Solima ai fati
> traggi un suono di crudo lamento,
> o t’ispiri il Signore un concento
> che ne infonda al patire virtù_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't even make any sense, "because they are the most insane mad world within this totally mad world of hundreds of most insane nations?"
> You should seek some help with your mental delusions.
Click to expand...


no comment, Nazi


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  What unsubstantiated claim?  The naked eye can see about 3000 stars.  That's a fact.
> 
> Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky
> 
> 2.  Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
> 3.  Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science.  Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
> 4.  We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains.  This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
> 5.  Is this from evolutionary thought?  Then it's so wrong.  Have to run.  Will explain later.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
> This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
> 
> "... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
> 
> A Young Moon
> The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
> 1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
> 2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
> 3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
> I have more but start with those.
Click to expand...


1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
> This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
> 
> "... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
> 
> A Young Moon
> The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
> 1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
> 2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
> 3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
> I have more but start with those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
> 
> The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
> 
> Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
> 
> Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
> 
> So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
Click to expand...

Science does not back up the bible. Anyone who thinks that needs to go find a clue.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


james bond said:


> 1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.












> Aristotle | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> *Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.)*
> 
> Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre.




bond, you are a joke and highly bigoted to believe science is the work of creationist ....




james bond said:


> The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton



ruled - (the christian world) has many meanings and interpretations most of which were negative ....


*  B.C.E. is highly unlikely to be a creationist .... ko.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> *Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.)*
> 
> Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bond, you are a joke and highly bigoted to believe science is the work of creationist ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ruled - (the christian world) has many meanings and interpretations most of which were negative ....
> 
> 
> *  B.C.E. is highly unlikely to be a creationist .... ko.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why would Christians be that way like the atheists?  Look at the atheist scientists.  They steal creationist scientist's ideas and works.  The recent example is using catastrophism to explain Chicxulub.  They stole the "God of the Gaps" concept to use against them during The Big Bang Theory.  They won't let creationist scientists in with their hypotheses.  What are they afraid of?  People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what!  Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong.  You are a good example, Wood.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
> This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
> 
> "... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
> 
> A Young Moon
> The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
> 1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
> 2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
> 3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
> I have more but start with those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
> 
> The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
> 
> Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
> 
> Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
> 
> So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
Click to expand...

I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
-I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
- I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
-Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
-We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
- We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
-We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.


----------



## hobelim

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
> 
> "... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
> 
> A Young Moon
> The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
> 1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
> 2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
> 3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
> I have more but start with those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
> 
> The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
> 
> Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
> 
> Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
> 
> So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
Click to expand...




Facts schmacts. Its all a trick of the devil I tell ya.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> *Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.)*
> 
> Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bond, you are a joke and highly bigoted to believe science is the work of creationist ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ruled - (the christian world) has many meanings and interpretations most of which were negative ....
> 
> 
> *  B.C.E. is highly unlikely to be a creationist .... ko.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Christians be that way like the atheists?  Look at the atheist scientists.  They steal creationist scientist's ideas and works.  The recent example is using catastrophism to explain Chicxulub.  They stole the "God of the Gaps" concept to use against them during The Big Bang Theory.  They won't let creationist scientists in with their hypotheses.  What are they afraid of?  People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what!  Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong.  You are a good example, Wood.
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong. You are a good example, Wood.










does that include Aristotle ... are you saying all who are not biblicist christian (creationist) are defined by you as being atheist.




james bond said:


> What are they afraid of? People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what!



your issue is the influence of an undocumented book over all else, against some of who existed prior to its publication.

Aristotle and the truth.

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see).  They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old.  It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion.  Hey, what's a few billion years among friends?  The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions.  Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
> 
> "... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
> 
> A Young Moon
> The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
> 1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
> 2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
> 3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
> I have more but start with those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
> 
> The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
> 
> Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
> 
> Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
> 
> So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
Click to expand...


Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.

Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.

Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?

Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.

And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.

All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> *Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.)*
> 
> Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bond, you are a joke and highly bigoted to believe science is the work of creationist ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ruled - (the christian world) has many meanings and interpretations most of which were negative ....
> 
> 
> *  B.C.E. is highly unlikely to be a creationist .... ko.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Christians be that way like the atheists?  Look at the atheist scientists.  They steal creationist scientist's ideas and works.  The recent example is using catastrophism to explain Chicxulub.  They stole the "God of the Gaps" concept to use against them during The Big Bang Theory.  They won't let creationist scientists in with their hypotheses.  What are they afraid of?  People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what!  Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong.  You are a good example, Wood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong. You are a good example, Wood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> does that include Aristotle ... are you saying all who are not biblicist christian (creationist) are defined by you as being atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are they afraid of? People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your issue is the influence of an undocumented book over all else, against some of who existed prior to its publication.
> 
> Aristotle and the truth.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Hahaha.  Why is Aristotle atheist?


----------



## BreezeWood

.


james bond said:


> Hahaha. Why is Aristotle atheist?




hahaha, just guessing from you that Aristotle knew nothing about your redeemer ... and would not have sought to crucify him had they met.


* sorry if I'm not up on your posts defending a 6000 year old Earth, I can barely skim over them in all honesty am I missing something about atheism ...

.


----------



## ChrisL

There were a whole bunch of people who existed and lived before the invention of Christianity.  Lol.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
> I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
> 
> "... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
> 
> A Young Moon
> The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
> 1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
> 2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
> 3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
> I have more but start with those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
> 
> The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
> 
> Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
> 
> Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
> 
> So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
Click to expand...

Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
-The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
Where Did Earth's Water Come From? 
-This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.

"Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
-Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
-Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
I can go on and on but you get the picture.
-You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
*Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
*
*


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha. Why is Aristotle atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha, just guessing from you that Aristotle knew nothing about your redeemer ... and would not have sought to crucify him had they met.
> 
> 
> * sorry if I'm not up on your posts defending a 6000 year old Earth, I can barely skim over them in all honesty am I missing something about atheism ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That's not what I said.  We know Aristotle and Jesus did not live in the same times, but that wouldn't make him atheist.  We know the Greek scholars and culture had influences upon the Romans and likely Jesus.  And there were probably Greeks who learned about Jesus and the Bible afterward.  None of these probably had much to do with atheism.  Atheism probably was expounded by a different Greek schmo.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones.  Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today.  It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show.  And what do we get?  Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction.  Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.  If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation.  That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s.  Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon.  I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
> 
> "... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
> 
> A Young Moon
> The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 2.  At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism.  Usually, there is no overlap.  The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water.  Evolutionists do not have an explanation.  The flood waters came from underneath the earth.  There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction.  The great flood also changed our lives for the worse.  The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
> 1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
> 2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
> 3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
> I have more but start with those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
> 
> The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
> 
> Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
> 
> Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
> 
> So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
Click to expand...


The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:

"Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.

While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.

The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."

I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.

I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
> 1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
> 2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
> 3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
> I have more but start with those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
> 
> The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
> 
> Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
> 
> Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
> 
> So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
Click to expand...

I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.


----------



## ChrisL

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
> 
> The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
> 
> Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
> 
> Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
> 
> So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.
Click to expand...


Your posts are great.  You are kicking ass in this thread!


----------



## forkup

ChrisL said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are great.  You are kicking ass in this thread!
Click to expand...

I'm kind of enjoying it myself. It's actually very intresting to see the replies. I'm baffled that after about 30 posts or something back and forth, and me trying about 7 or 8 different ways to show how impossible his position is James is still capable of keeping up his young earth position.


----------



## LittleNipper

Two Vastly Different Views:
Let's not kid ourselves.  What this is all about is whether or not the Old Testament book of Genesis (along with the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament) is an accurate account of what happened around 4600 years ago with regard to a worldwide flood and about 6000 years ago with regard to Creation itself.  Is the Bible accurate and true or is it just a book of allegorical stories? 

Was the great majority of the world's sedimentary strata laid down by a single Worldwide Deluge in a short amount of time, or is the evolutionary scenario of slow change, acting over eons of TIME and the associated Geological Time Chart (with its millions and millions of years) a more accurate account of Earth history and how we came to be?

This is also about God's future judgment of mankind and the return of Jesus to rule over the Earth -- that God and He created -- and to which He compared to the Days of Noah and the Flood.  See  Luke 17:20-27,  19:11-27;  John 5:22-23, 12:32, and  Rev. 22:12.

Let's Look at the Evidence:
 The following are 18 Evidences of either massive flooding and erosion, extremely rapid layering of strata, or direct evidence of a Worldwide Flood.  Such evidences are found in numerous places on virtually every Continent. 



 One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils."  Such fossils are found all over the world: especially in and around coal seams.  They are often in the form of  fossil  trees that were buried upright and which often cross multiple  layers of strata such as sandstone, shale, limestone  and even   coal beds. 1,2,3,4    They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long.  Sometimes they are oblique (or at an angle to) the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular with (or standing 'upright' in) it.  For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata.  Many of the trees are from 10-20 feet long,  5,6 and at least  one was 40 feet long.  5,6,7  
Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8   have both roots and rootlets attached.  Such trees, and their missing roots are discussed in detail in an article on 'Fossil Forests'.  9    Likewise many, if not most, of the large, fragmented, and  broken-off  Stigmaria roots (of these trees) are also missing  their rootlets.   In fact, that's how the word "stigmaria" (roots) got its name: i.e. because of the scar marks left behind from the broken off (and now missing) rootlets. 9  

 Many of these roots and rootlets are also buried individually.  9  Thus virtually proving that neither the trees themselves, nor their rootlets were buried in the place where they grew, or _"in situ,"_ but were uprooted and re-buried where they are now found.
Similar circumstances occur elsewhere in Nova Scotia and other Canadian provinces, as well as the United States, South America, Europe, China, Russia, and Australia.  Buried tree stumps are also found on Axel Heiberg 10,11 Island in Northern Canada and wherever coal seams are found.

And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, much of it is from books that are over 100 years old.  One of the first articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:

_“Personally, I am of the opinion that ... polystrate fossils  constitute a crucial phenomenon  both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition.  Curiously  a paper on polystrate fossils appears to be a  'black swan’  in geological literature.  Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of  the relevant phenomena was never published.  However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils.  In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position." _  12  Emphasis Added

With regard to Rupke's observation, I suspect the reason why such is still the case has more to do with a pervasive bias against any and all evidence for a Creator to whom we may one day have to give account than to the ever-mounting evidence against the theory of evolution and the millions and millions of years that such a belief needs to make it seem true.

See also Organic levels of the Yellowstone Petrified Forest*The Yellowstone Petrified Forests 14 

The Fossils Themselves: 
 Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today,  nor are they found  forming on the bottom of the sea. 15  Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies.  16   Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a  flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past. Rapid Petrification of Wood 

Clastic Dikes:  






 According to  Austin, a clastic dike is: 
"a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass."   17 
 "These dikes...(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in igneous and metamorphic rocks.  The process of  formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale."    17  


Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in  that  massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata.  This must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state.  This is clearly brought out in a book on this subject by Dr. John Morris on this same subject: i.e. on the Age of the Earth.

 What took these "older" sediments so long to become hard?

One would  think that a million  years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone,  yet we have an example of sediments which  are said to be  80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into the (supposedly much) younger sediments. Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary  method of  "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strong suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution. 17,18,19 

Mt. St. Helens: 


 Three separate eruptions produced  sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick.  One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin  laminations up to 25 feet thick.   The third eruption was a lava flow,  which turned into a hot mud-flow as it  crossed the Toutle River.  This hot mud flow not only diverted  the  river, but carved a 17 mile long  series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours.  They call it the Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River." 20,21,22  And to this very day, neither the mass media, nor any  popular  "science" publications have told the public what happened. 23  See also Mt. St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Catastrophe.

Palouse Canyon:   
 In   Eastern Washington  State there is a canyon that was eroded through solid  basalt by Lake Missoula floods in 1-2 days. This canyon is 300 to 500 feet deep.  24,25,26,27,28 

An Australian Beach:
At Greenmount Beach on the Gold Coast of Queensland, an interesting thing occurred: 

"clear laminations, or layering, in the sand--formed by the separation of  normal silica-sand grains and smaller, denser mineral sand-grains such as rutile which are dark  in color.. The layering was present along the whole sand mass exposed."   29 

"This was produced as a result of a beach restoration project (which involved) the dredging of sand from (a) sand bar   (on)    the Tweed River and carrying it by ship several kilometres north to the southern Gold Coast beaches, where it was pumped ashore as a water/sand slurry through a large pipe to the beach." 29

 See also Talking About Geology / Varves.  30

Dr. Guy Berthault has performed a number of  experiments which demonstrate this.    31,32,33    See following links for more info and visual documentation: Evolution: Fact or Belief?, Experiments in Stratification, and Sedimentation Experiments.

Turbidity Currents:  
 A turbidity current is an underwater mud flow, the discovery  of  which caused somewhat of a revolution in geology.  As a result, many sedimentary  strata layers throughout  the world have been reevaluated and found to be turbidites.  34,35,36,37,38,39,40

For example, regarding turbidites and the impact they are having on modern Geology, Kurt Howard 41  said the following in his paper on this topic: 


My physical geology professor said, "Regarding uniformitarianism, you can take it  with a grain of salt."  After reviewing geology texts on the subject of turbidites, I am following the ... professor's advice. To  paraphrase his words, I am taking uniformitarianism with a grain of sand, for the philosophy of uniformitarianism states that sedimentary layers form over many millions of years, while ... recent research has shown that turbidites form within a few hours. {1}      

In  1972 Burgert  identified several lower basal Tapeats units as turbidites in Grand Canyon's Cheops Bay. Dr. Ariel Roth a geologist at Loma Linda University's Geoscience Institute, suggested that 30% of all sedimentary rocks in Grand Canyon are turbidites. Some geologists suggest that 50% of the world's sedimentary rocks might be turbidites. 

Modern geologists discarded the terms   flysch  sediments and  geosyncline  because rapidly formed megathick flysch is incompatible with uniformitarianism and long ages. However, in the last few years, the number of geologists abandoning the classical uniformitarian discipline  and adopting the new catastrophism is almost a shock to ... creationists. Geologists are finally beginning to grudgingly agree with ... creationists about the nature of the stratigraphic record, which is a record of major catastrophic events and not the slow year-by-year buildup suggested by uniformitarianism. Flysch deposits might be the sedimentary results of a global  flood.  The idea of  geosynclines is  unpopular because most geologists believe in plate tectonics.    Emphasis Added

Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering: 
 As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world  we see  almost  everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake")  layered strata.  Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states. For example, the  Tapeats Sandstone  covers over half of the United States, and drawings from Dana's Manual of Geology depict over 90 percent of the United States and Mexico, and half of Canada  under water.  We also know that the Grand Canyon was once under the ocean because of the marine fossils that have been found there. 






Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and  millions of years.  Some claim that much of the strata is simply "river" deposits  or river deltas. 42,43   Creationists and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations.  44,45    First because there is virtually   no evidence of  erosion  between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of  the layers tells us that they could not have been formed by rivers, nor river deltas.  That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick and cover literally  thousands of square miles.

This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents by a flood or  floods like nothing we have seen in moderns times.

We can say for certain that it was the ocean (as opposed to a lake) because of the marine fossils that are buried in much of this strata.  For example, in the Grand Canyon area itself,  old Earth geologists  have said that the Ocean swept over the whole area on six  different occasions.  Young Earth geologists say it  was probably only once.

A Whale of a Fossil:
 Or should we say "a fossil of a whale? It's true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry. 

 "They've found fossils there before; in fact the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected  anywhere... (It) is standing on end.. and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet. 
"The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long.  46,47

More Fossil Whales:
 "In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?" 48
 "Bones of Whale have been found 440  feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..."  48

video 54   by Dr. Walter Brown.  See also Seashell on the Mountaintop  by Alan Cutler.

Frozen Mammoths:     


 Frozen mammoths and Mammoth bones are found in large  numbers in  Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Europe.  Some of these were in such good preservation that Eskimos would feed their dogs  meat from them when they became exposed due to melting  ice and snow: that  is, if wolves didn't get their first.  For more details see the Book. 

Fissures In The Rocks:    
 In caves and fissures in  England  and Whales  and all over western  Europe are found bones and bone fragments of many types of extinct and extant animal species -- including the  mammoth, hippopotamus,  rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison, reindeer, wolf  and cave lion.  In virtually every case, the bones are disarticulated, without teeth marks, un-weathered, and in most cases broken and splintered.  55
 "In the rock on the summit of Mont de Sautenay - a flat-topped hill  near Chalonsur-Saone between Dijon and Lyons - there is  a fissure filled with animal bones.  'Why should so many wolves, bears, horses, and oxen have ascended a hill isolated on all sides?'  asked Albert Gaudry, professor at the Jardin des Plantes. According to him, the bones in this cleft are mostly broken and splintered into innumerable ... fragments and are 'evidently not those of animals devoured by beasts of prey; nor have  they been broken by man.  Nevertheless, the remains of  wolf  were ... abundant, together with those  of cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox, and deer... Prestwich thought that the   ... bones... were found in common heaps because, '... [they] ... fled [there] to escape the rising waters.'" 55,56

Erratic Boulders: 
All  over Europe and  North America are found large "erratic" "boulders" which  were transported many miles by some mysterious force -- the most likely of  which  is a massive flood  that swept over the Continents.  Concerning these Velikovsky writes:


"Some erratics are enormous.  The block  near Conway,  New Hampshire, is  90 by 40 by 38 feet and weighs about 10,000 tons, the load of a large cargo ship.  Equally large is Mohegan Rock,  which towers over the town of Montville, in Connecticut.  The great  flat  erratic  in Warren County, Ohio, weighs approximately 13,500 tons and  covers three quarters of  an acre;  the Ototoks erratic, thirty  miles south  of  Calgary, Alberta, consists  of  two pieces  of  quartzite 'derived from at least 50 miles to the west,'    [and weighs] over 18,000 tons." 57

Was the Flood Local or Worldwide?  
 In the late 60's and early 70's:


 "Two American oceanographic  vessels pulled from the bottom of  the Gulf of  Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment.  Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera.  While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of  the temperature and salinity of  the water.  When they reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the  bottom.  A cross-section  of that bottom ... carries a record  of climates that may go back more than 100 million years.  Every inch of  core may represent as much as 1000  years of  the earth's  past."  58

 "The cores  were analyzed in  two separate investigations, by Cesare Emiliani  of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and  Nicholas Shackleton  of Cambridge University.  Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity,  providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of  fresh water into the Gulf of  Mexico.  Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600  years ago."   1  To Emiliani, all  the questions and  arguments are  minor beside the single fact that a vast amount of  fresh melt water poured  into the Gulf  of  Mexico.  'We  know this,' he says, 'because the oxygen isotope ratios of  the  foraminifera shells show a  marked temporary decrease in  the salinity of  the waters  of the Gulf of  Mexico. It clearly shows that there  was a major period  of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000  years ago ... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal  flood.     58 Emphasis Added
 "Emiliani's  findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett  and Shackleton, who concluded  that there was a 'massive inpouring of  glacial melt water into the Gulf  of Mexico via the Mississippi  River system.  At the time of maximum inpouring of  this water, surface salinities were... reduced by about ten percent."  58

The Black Sea Evidence:

"Science... has found evidence for a massive deluge that may ... have  inspired  Noah's tale.  About 7,500 years ago, a  flood  poured ten  cubic miles of  water a day -- 130 times more than  flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black  Sea, abruptly  turning the formerly  freshwater lake into a  brackish inland sea."   59 

 "In  1993,  William Ryan  and  Walter Pitman  of  Columbia University's  Lamont-Doherty Earth  Observatory dug up cores of sediment  from the bottom of  the Black sea.  The cores showed  that the sea's  outer margins had once been dry land, indicating it had been two-thirds its  present size.  Furthermore, over the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer of sediment that  could only have been deposited  during a  flood. The researchers also found that within that layer saltwater mollusks appear, all  from the Mediterranean and all dating from around  7600 years ago." 59  

See also the PBS article on this evidence.

Miracle or Worldwide Flood?


"Such a hypothesis would  require assumption of a highly unlikely pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras  are followed, everywhere at the same distance and  the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves  preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world ...  without evolutionary changes and  without ever becoming mixed..." 60 

"It would be easy to repeat this investigation for almost every critical zone fossil or fauna throughout the geological column for hundreds,  perhaps thousands of ... cases.  The conclusions would be the same.  In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we would have  to 'invoke a miracle',  if,  for example, we were to assume anything but world-wide contemporaneous  deposition for each of the 55 ammonite zones of the Jurassic.  Not all of them occur everywhere, but wherever two or more are found in superposition they occur in the same order.  60  Arkell ... summarized the picture of ... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:

'Evolution is above all very uneven.  Certain periods were outstandingly productive of  new and verile forms  which often seem to have sprung into existence  from nowhere ... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of  the world ... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 60, 61  
Note: Manticoceras and Cheiloceras are two different types of ammonites.

Worldwide Chaos and Out of Order Fossils:
 The following excerpts provide further evidence that something is amiss with the Geological Time Chart and the associated Theory of Evolution itself.
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling  fact of the fossil record."  62  And that:  

 "Heretofore, we have thrown up our hands in frustration at  the lack  of expected pattern in life's  history --  or we have  sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it If  we can develop a ... theory of mass extinction, we may finally understand why life has thwarted our expectations, and ... extract an  unexpected ... pattern from apparent chaos. 62 

"One of  the ironies of  the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression..."  63 

"... only 15-20%  of the earth's land surface has even 3 geologic  periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order."  64  
 
 "Any sequence in which an older fossil occurs above a younger one is stratigraphically disordered ... disorder may be  from millimeters to many meters ... (and) is produced by  the physical or biogenic mixing of ... sediments ... Since these processes occur to an extent in virtually all sedimentary systems, stratigraphic  disorder at some scale is probably a common feature of  the fossil record." 65 

"The extent of disorder is ... not well documented; however, the widespread occurrence of anomalies ... suggest that disorder should be taken seriously ..."  ref. 61  p. 234.  W. J. Arkell.  

 "Examination of Britain's record of  the Ice Age levels discloses  a 'complex interbedding of drift sheets derived from different sources.'  'When we add the additional complications imposed by thin  drifts, scanty interglacial deposits, and  the frequent presence in  fossil - bearing beds of secondary [displaced]  fossils derived from the reworking of older horizons, we get a truly difficult overall problem ... All in all, British glacial  stratigraphic research  has encountered exceptional  difficulties,' writes  R. F. Flint, professor of geology  at Yale University.  66, 67   Emphasis Added


Problematica:  
 "Problematica"  is the "code word" paleontologists use to describe out of order fossils, or those that are not easily placed, or that are misplaced,  interbedded, or "mixed" in with other strata of a different "date."  According to an online Italian to English dictionary the term means "problems." Several years ago, a Google search on this term yielded over a million hits.  To some, if not many that seems like a lot of problems for uniformitarian geology to explain.  A few such problems are discussed in an article called Sea sloths and out of order Fossils.     

For more information on the Worldwide Flood, or  how a Boat with Thousands of Animals onboard could possibly have survived see the links below.  

http://www.earthage.org/floodlegends/flood__legends.htm
 References 
 Flood Legends Days or EpochsPolystrate FossilsScripture Evidencehttp://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil_Trees_of_Nova_Scotia.htm
The La Brea Tar PitsThe Florida EvergladesPsalm 104 and the FloodMore Scriptural Evidence Evidence from CyclothemsQuestions about Noah's FloodEvidence for a Worldwide Floodhttp://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/Cyclothems/Cyclothems.html
Tectonic Wedge Resonance TheorySea Sloths and Out of Order FossilsHomeAcknowledgements Comments 

Copyright, 2006, 2010, 2013,  Randy S. Berg; 
  Copies may be printed or copied and distributed freely for educational purposes 




The Age of the Earth

Introduction 
The Age of the Earth Debate 

Radiometric Dating Continental Drift The Big Bang 

Worldwide Flood Young Earth Evidence

The Missing RootsThe Missing MatterEssays on EvolutionScience vs EvolutionThe Age of the EarthYoung Earth EvidenceThe Age of the Universe 
More Geologic Evidences 
  Evidence for a Young World 
Evidence for a Recent Creation 
The Scriptures and a Young EarthIs Earth really 4.5 Billion Years Old? What you may not Know about Ice Cores If Corals are Old, why do they Date Young?http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html
Do Evaporites & Varves favor an Old Earth? http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/glacier-girl.htm
 Young age of the Earth & Universe Q & A The Young Earth The Age of the EarthFaith, Form, and Timehttp://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2548
Thousands Not BillionsThe Great Turning PointIts a Young World after AllIllustrated Origins Answer Book
 Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth  

Creationist Author  Links
Creation Web Sites Links
VHS& DVD Video  Links
The Age of the EarthModern Science's Foundation
True Origin Archive on Creation
 

Home
Fantasy LandOld Earth EvidenceThe Age of the Earth Debate 
 Did Humans come from Coral?Was the Earth Created Instantly? 
Six Days or Six Long Time Periods 
Are Dinosaurs Millions of Years Old?
*


----------



## LittleNipper

*Does Science Prove Noah's Flood? *


06/03/12 9:51 AM

*
Marianne Loves 
Yeshua HaMashiach









* 


*WND EXCLUSIVE*
*Does science prove Noah's flood?*
*Evidence of flood hydroplate theory cited to support biblical account*
Published: 17 hours ago




*By Michael Haverluck*

For decades, science books in America’s schools have taught that the earth is billions of years old, with the Big Bang bursting through the universe some 14.3 billion years ago. They teach children that bacteria has been around a billion years or so and that the “Precambrian Explosion” some 500 million years ago launched some of the earliest forms of life.

But what if the evidence doesn’t support that? What if scientific observation suggests that the Bible’s literal account of thousands of years is right.

That is the position of Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.

His own scientific credentials are impressive. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College.

His blunt assessment is that some evolutionary explanations would be more relevant at a Star Wars convention than in a science classroom. Pangaea, plate tectonics and asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs might work in state-issued textbooks, but they do not pass the scrutiny of Brown’s scientific research.

In the Eighth edition of his book “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,” Brown presents his hydroplate theory, which unfolds scientific evidence that the earth’s present geologic features and fossils were formed around 5,000 years ago — not untold millions or billions of years ago. He asserts that the global flood recorded in Genesis 7 is the mechanism that created the geologic, astronomical and biological phenomena witnesseed today.

A major motivation that has propelled Brown’s decades of research has been his quest to give Christian students answers that will withstand scrutiny when challenged by Darwinist theories within the classroom. He notes that he does not rely on faith, miracles or sped-up evolutionary processes to buttress his theory – only observable and calculable data.

*More Water*

According to Brown, the earth was an extremely different place before Noah’s flood. Oceans were much shallower and mountains much lower. He notes that it is no coincidence that more than 230 flood legends – with many common elements such as a sole surviving family in a boat – exist from every corner of the earth. In fact, the flood of Noah is the very device that sets Brown’s hydroplate theory in motion.

_Atheists have scoffed at its mention and religionists have denied it’s truth, but here’s the scientific and archaeological evidence of “The Red Sea Crossing.”_

Many skeptics ponder how the entire earth could have been covered in water, especially with many mountain ranges extending miles into the sky. Brown argues that pre-flood oceans contained half their present volume of water and that the Earth’s massive mountain ranges were not yet pushed up.

Brown contends that “water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere” if the earth’s surface was completely smooth, easily covering the low-lying mountains that existed at the time of the flood.





Tapping into the scientific validity of the Bible, Brown lets the book of Genesis uncork the source of the floodwaters that reshaped the earth to its present appearance.

“In the 600th year of Noah’s life, on the 17th day of the second month – on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened,” reads Genesis 7:11-12. “And rain fell on the Earth 40 days and 40 nights.”

For those wondering where such torrents of water would originate, Brown also has students examine the beginning of the Bible’s first book, which specifies that underground waters were set in place on the second day of Creation.

“And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water,’” states Genesis 1:6-7. “So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.”

This expanse, says Brown, is the earth’s crust separating the shallow oceans and seas above from the water trapped underneath, before much of it jettisoned during the flood two millennia later.

“About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface,” explains Brown. “The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least three-quarters of a mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle.”

Brown gives a visual of what he calculates the earth looked like before catastrophic forces pushed mountains tens of thousands of feet higher.

“Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas were … joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown asserts. “On the pre-flood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains – generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.”

Yet not all subterranean water escaped during the flood, asserts Brown. He argues that earthquakes provide evidence that oceans of water still exist underneath the crust, noting that only underground channels of water could rapidly transmit shockwaves thousands of miles from the epicenter.

_See the “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evoluation III” and “Something Transhuman This Way Comes.”_

Effects of this transmission are evidenced around lakes, where the crust is thinner. If the shockwaves were going through solid rock, instead of water, the earthquake’s effects would never extend great distances, as it did after an Alaskan earthquake, when transmitted shockwaves broke boat moorings in Louisiana’s Lake Pontchartrain ─ more than 4,000 miles away.

*Dishing out the hydroplate theory*

Because of tidal pumping forces increasing the water pressure beneath the miles of rock over the centuries, the crust stretched like an inflating balloon, says Brown. This pressure triggered a crack that ended up rupturing the earth’s crust – a process that Brown calculates took about two hours to wrap around the globe.



“As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth,” Brown explained. “Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped [and] caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep ‘slit’ that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.”

To relate the magnitude of this release, Brown equates it to the impact of 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs, ripping a tear down the middle of the Atlantic, veering beneath Africa and Australia, running north a couple thousand miles off South America’s west coast, dipping under North America off Mexico’s west coast to Alaska, resurfacing in the Arctic Circle and continuing down through Iceland.

_To see a video presentation of the theory, Click here._

“All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path approximates today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and far above the atmosphere,” posits Brown. “Some of the water fragmented into an ‘ocean’ of droplets that fell as rain such as the earth has never experienced – before or after.”

According to Brown, this cataclysmic event had more than geologic effects.

“Other jetting water rose above the atmosphere, where it froze and then fell on various regions of earth as huge masses of extreme cold, muddy ‘hail,’” Brown stated. “That hail buried, suffocated and froze many animals, including some mammoths.”

Brown notes that this explains how mammoths froze in minutes while still chewing vegetation, which requires temperatures of -150 degrees Fahrenheit – colder than any natural temperatures ever recorded on earth.

The effects were of astronomical proportions, as well, says Brown.

“The most powerful jetting water and rock debris escaped earth’s gravity and became the solar system’s comets, asteroids and meteoroids,” Brown claims.

To buttress this assertion, Brown adds that numerous cosmic bodies in the solar system possess scientifically documented characteristics that support the earth’s supersonic expulsion – such as spin, density, composition, size, number, texture and orbital measurements. He credits this event with creating craters on the moon and terrestrial planets, many containing craters on their outer-facing sides with ice still inside of them.

The earth itself is also replete with many topological features formed during the flood. Ocean trenches are one of these phenomena.

“Deep folds, up to thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie at the floor of the western Pacific Ocean in an area centered directly opposite of the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown explains. “As the flood increasingly altered the earth’s balanced, spherical shape, growing gravitational forces tended to squeeze the earth back toward a more spherical shape.”

Brown argues there are 15 reasons why the massive plates on the earth’s surface cannot dive into the earth and drag down the folds – one being his scientific explanation and diagram demonstrating why such pressure would crush the plate, not pull it down.

“Once a ‘tipping point’ was reached, the portion of the subterranean chamber floor – with the most overlying rock removed – rose at least eight miles to become today’s Atlantic floor,” Brown added. “This caused the Pacific floor ─ the region inside the Ring of Fire ─ to sink and buckle inward, producing folds called ocean trenches.”

In other words, the outburst and pressure release on the Atlantic side caused suction on the opposite side of the globe, pulling down the area where the world’s deepest ocean trenches (around the Pacific Rim) are concentrated today.

Brown points to the tens of thousands of volcanoes formed inside the “Ring of Fire” ─ where 90 percent of earthquakes originate ─ as modern evidence of the massive pressure release and drop of the Pacific Rim that formed this volcanic zone during the flood.

*Let it roll*

Even with the plummet of the Pacific floor, the most earth-changing event was yet to occur, as Brown contends that once the fountains of the great deep came to a halt after 40 days, other mechanisms were set into motion. He notes that these fountains that pushed up the crust on both sides to form the 46,000-mile Mid-Oceanic Ridge not only flooded the world; they produced massive amounts of sediment from the eroded rock that buried plants and animals to form the stratified fossil record.

“Then the hydroplates slid down and away from the inclining Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” Brown describes, illustrating how this separated the east coast of North and South America from Europe and Africa. “Once the gradually advancing plates reached speeds of about 45 miles per hour, they would collide, compress and buckle.”

Brown credits the process with fashioning today’s topography, comparing the event to a train falling down railroad tracks after being lifted in the middle. He notes that once the railway cars (hydroplates) run out of track (subterranean water), they lose momentum, crumple and jackknife. The 46,000-mile earth-encircling rupture quickly grew to an average width of 800 miles, says Brown, and when the subterranean water ceased escaping, the remaining water acted as a lubricant to propel the hydroplates.

“The plates that buckled downward became ocean trenches, and those that buckled upward became mountains,” Brown clarified. “This explains why large mountain ranges are in correlation to their oceanic ridges. Naturally, the long axis of each buckled mountain was generally perpendicular to its hydroplate’s motion or parallel to the portion of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge from which it slid. So the Rocky Mountains, Appalachians and Andes have a north-south orientation.”



Besides spurring the formation of mountain ranges, plateaus and the jigsaw fit of the continents, this compression event caused a catastrophic imbalance in the earth’s sphericity, caused by the upthrust of the Himalayan Plateau. The massive thickening of the crust containing the 10 highest peaks on earth produced a net centrifugal force that rolled the Himalayas 35 to 45 degrees toward today’s equator. Brown says this axis tilt explains why plants and animals from warm climates are buried in today’s Polar Regions.

*Debunking the evolutionary model*

Brown argues that the evolutionists’ account of a comet, asteroid or volcanic activity triggering the extinction of the dinosaurs is flawed. He contends that only a global flood could have generated a mass rapid burial and fossilization of animals, as all remains would have rotted away if they had died without being submerged in water to preserve them. Brown also explains that fossils’ similar density and mass discovered on the same levels of the geologic column prove that dinosaur remains were sorted and buried just thousands of years ago in a flood, not merely interred hundreds of millions of years ago in a series of mass extinctions.

Another #+$## in evolutionists’ armor, says Brown, is that the soft bone tissue and DNA found in dinosaur remains could not exist for more than thousands of years. On top of this, he points out that intentionally inflated and incorrect readings of fossils and rocks measured using various dating techniques further put evolutionists’ millions- and billions-of-years-old origins account into disrepute.

Evolutionary stories describing gradual erosion taking place over millions of years to form various natural wonders have also been shot down by Brown’s geological observations in and around the Grand Canyon, the Strait of Gibraltar and the channel under the Golden Gate Bridge. He presents evidence that these were carved by rapid erosion from nearby breaches of large bodies of water, which carved out these marvels of nature in a matter of weeks or months, not millions of years.

In addition to the aforementioned arguments for a young earth, Brown also turns to the Bible to dispel dozens of theistic evolution claims. One fundamental teaching from the Bible, that sin preceded death (Genesis 2:17, 3:1-24; Romans 5:12, 6:23), demonstrates that evolution is not compatible with Scripture, as naturalistic doctrine claims that animals and “primitive” humans died for untold millions of years before Adam and Eve’s original sin approximately 7,000 years ago, conversely stating that death preceded sin.

Brown examines other phenomena and topics that provide further evidence for the Bible’s accuracy and a young earth, including Noah’s Ark; symbiotic relationships; strange planets; the moon’s dust, origin and recession; planetary rings; a faint, young sun; the first and second laws of thermodynamics; the devolving of languages; biblical genealogies; mutations; mitochondrial Eve; and many more in his book.

As a former evolutionist and atheist, Brown is quite familiar with all the arguments from the other side. But does his flood account hold water to competing theories?

For decades, evolutionists and creationists alike have refused to debate Brown’s scientific findings. He has a few stipulations – that the debate is published in a major scientific journal, that his opponent supporting evolution hold a doctorate and that religion is not discussed in the debate, only scientific data.

Brown reports some 50 of the circumstances he would expect to see develop under his theory have been documented and concludes that it is the Bible’s description of origins that are, simply, scientific


----------



## forkup

I'm guessing that this post is


LittleNipper said:


> *Does Science Prove Noah's Flood? *
> 
> 
> 06/03/12 9:51 AM
> 
> *
> Marianne Loves
> Yeshua HaMashiach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *WND EXCLUSIVE*
> *Does science prove Noah's flood?*
> *Evidence of flood hydroplate theory cited to support biblical account*
> Published: 17 hours ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *By Michael Haverluck*
> 
> For decades, science books in America’s schools have taught that the earth is billions of years old, with the Big Bang bursting through the universe some 14.3 billion years ago. They teach children that bacteria has been around a billion years or so and that the “Precambrian Explosion” some 500 million years ago launched some of the earliest forms of life.
> 
> But what if the evidence doesn’t support that? What if scientific observation suggests that the Bible’s literal account of thousands of years is right.
> 
> That is the position of Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.
> 
> His own scientific credentials are impressive. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College.
> 
> His blunt assessment is that some evolutionary explanations would be more relevant at a Star Wars convention than in a science classroom. Pangaea, plate tectonics and asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs might work in state-issued textbooks, but they do not pass the scrutiny of Brown’s scientific research.
> 
> In the Eighth edition of his book “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,” Brown presents his hydroplate theory, which unfolds scientific evidence that the earth’s present geologic features and fossils were formed around 5,000 years ago — not untold millions or billions of years ago. He asserts that the global flood recorded in Genesis 7 is the mechanism that created the geologic, astronomical and biological phenomena witnesseed today.
> 
> A major motivation that has propelled Brown’s decades of research has been his quest to give Christian students answers that will withstand scrutiny when challenged by Darwinist theories within the classroom. He notes that he does not rely on faith, miracles or sped-up evolutionary processes to buttress his theory – only observable and calculable data.
> 
> *More Water*
> 
> According to Brown, the earth was an extremely different place before Noah’s flood. Oceans were much shallower and mountains much lower. He notes that it is no coincidence that more than 230 flood legends – with many common elements such as a sole surviving family in a boat – exist from every corner of the earth. In fact, the flood of Noah is the very device that sets Brown’s hydroplate theory in motion.
> 
> _Atheists have scoffed at its mention and religionists have denied it’s truth, but here’s the scientific and archaeological evidence of “The Red Sea Crossing.”_
> 
> Many skeptics ponder how the entire earth could have been covered in water, especially with many mountain ranges extending miles into the sky. Brown argues that pre-flood oceans contained half their present volume of water and that the Earth’s massive mountain ranges were not yet pushed up.
> 
> Brown contends that “water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere” if the earth’s surface was completely smooth, easily covering the low-lying mountains that existed at the time of the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tapping into the scientific validity of the Bible, Brown lets the book of Genesis uncork the source of the floodwaters that reshaped the earth to its present appearance.
> 
> “In the 600th year of Noah’s life, on the 17th day of the second month – on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened,” reads Genesis 7:11-12. “And rain fell on the Earth 40 days and 40 nights.”
> 
> For those wondering where such torrents of water would originate, Brown also has students examine the beginning of the Bible’s first book, which specifies that underground waters were set in place on the second day of Creation.
> 
> “And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water,’” states Genesis 1:6-7. “So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.”
> 
> This expanse, says Brown, is the earth’s crust separating the shallow oceans and seas above from the water trapped underneath, before much of it jettisoned during the flood two millennia later.
> 
> “About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface,” explains Brown. “The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least three-quarters of a mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle.”
> 
> Brown gives a visual of what he calculates the earth looked like before catastrophic forces pushed mountains tens of thousands of feet higher.
> 
> “Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas were … joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown asserts. “On the pre-flood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains – generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.”
> 
> Yet not all subterranean water escaped during the flood, asserts Brown. He argues that earthquakes provide evidence that oceans of water still exist underneath the crust, noting that only underground channels of water could rapidly transmit shockwaves thousands of miles from the epicenter.
> 
> _See the “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evoluation III” and “Something Transhuman This Way Comes.”_
> 
> Effects of this transmission are evidenced around lakes, where the crust is thinner. If the shockwaves were going through solid rock, instead of water, the earthquake’s effects would never extend great distances, as it did after an Alaskan earthquake, when transmitted shockwaves broke boat moorings in Louisiana’s Lake Pontchartrain ─ more than 4,000 miles away.
> 
> *Dishing out the hydroplate theory*
> 
> Because of tidal pumping forces increasing the water pressure beneath the miles of rock over the centuries, the crust stretched like an inflating balloon, says Brown. This pressure triggered a crack that ended up rupturing the earth’s crust – a process that Brown calculates took about two hours to wrap around the globe.
> 
> 
> 
> “As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth,” Brown explained. “Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped [and] caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep ‘slit’ that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.”
> 
> To relate the magnitude of this release, Brown equates it to the impact of 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs, ripping a tear down the middle of the Atlantic, veering beneath Africa and Australia, running north a couple thousand miles off South America’s west coast, dipping under North America off Mexico’s west coast to Alaska, resurfacing in the Arctic Circle and continuing down through Iceland.
> 
> _To see a video presentation of the theory, Click here._
> 
> “All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path approximates today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and far above the atmosphere,” posits Brown. “Some of the water fragmented into an ‘ocean’ of droplets that fell as rain such as the earth has never experienced – before or after.”
> 
> According to Brown, this cataclysmic event had more than geologic effects.
> 
> “Other jetting water rose above the atmosphere, where it froze and then fell on various regions of earth as huge masses of extreme cold, muddy ‘hail,’” Brown stated. “That hail buried, suffocated and froze many animals, including some mammoths.”
> 
> Brown notes that this explains how mammoths froze in minutes while still chewing vegetation, which requires temperatures of -150 degrees Fahrenheit – colder than any natural temperatures ever recorded on earth.
> 
> The effects were of astronomical proportions, as well, says Brown.
> 
> “The most powerful jetting water and rock debris escaped earth’s gravity and became the solar system’s comets, asteroids and meteoroids,” Brown claims.
> 
> To buttress this assertion, Brown adds that numerous cosmic bodies in the solar system possess scientifically documented characteristics that support the earth’s supersonic expulsion – such as spin, density, composition, size, number, texture and orbital measurements. He credits this event with creating craters on the moon and terrestrial planets, many containing craters on their outer-facing sides with ice still inside of them.
> 
> The earth itself is also replete with many topological features formed during the flood. Ocean trenches are one of these phenomena.
> 
> “Deep folds, up to thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie at the floor of the western Pacific Ocean in an area centered directly opposite of the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown explains. “As the flood increasingly altered the earth’s balanced, spherical shape, growing gravitational forces tended to squeeze the earth back toward a more spherical shape.”
> 
> Brown argues there are 15 reasons why the massive plates on the earth’s surface cannot dive into the earth and drag down the folds – one being his scientific explanation and diagram demonstrating why such pressure would crush the plate, not pull it down.
> 
> “Once a ‘tipping point’ was reached, the portion of the subterranean chamber floor – with the most overlying rock removed – rose at least eight miles to become today’s Atlantic floor,” Brown added. “This caused the Pacific floor ─ the region inside the Ring of Fire ─ to sink and buckle inward, producing folds called ocean trenches.”
> 
> In other words, the outburst and pressure release on the Atlantic side caused suction on the opposite side of the globe, pulling down the area where the world’s deepest ocean trenches (around the Pacific Rim) are concentrated today.
> 
> Brown points to the tens of thousands of volcanoes formed inside the “Ring of Fire” ─ where 90 percent of earthquakes originate ─ as modern evidence of the massive pressure release and drop of the Pacific Rim that formed this volcanic zone during the flood.
> 
> *Let it roll*
> 
> Even with the plummet of the Pacific floor, the most earth-changing event was yet to occur, as Brown contends that once the fountains of the great deep came to a halt after 40 days, other mechanisms were set into motion. He notes that these fountains that pushed up the crust on both sides to form the 46,000-mile Mid-Oceanic Ridge not only flooded the world; they produced massive amounts of sediment from the eroded rock that buried plants and animals to form the stratified fossil record.
> 
> “Then the hydroplates slid down and away from the inclining Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” Brown describes, illustrating how this separated the east coast of North and South America from Europe and Africa. “Once the gradually advancing plates reached speeds of about 45 miles per hour, they would collide, compress and buckle.”
> 
> Brown credits the process with fashioning today’s topography, comparing the event to a train falling down railroad tracks after being lifted in the middle. He notes that once the railway cars (hydroplates) run out of track (subterranean water), they lose momentum, crumple and jackknife. The 46,000-mile earth-encircling rupture quickly grew to an average width of 800 miles, says Brown, and when the subterranean water ceased escaping, the remaining water acted as a lubricant to propel the hydroplates.
> 
> “The plates that buckled downward became ocean trenches, and those that buckled upward became mountains,” Brown clarified. “This explains why large mountain ranges are in correlation to their oceanic ridges. Naturally, the long axis of each buckled mountain was generally perpendicular to its hydroplate’s motion or parallel to the portion of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge from which it slid. So the Rocky Mountains, Appalachians and Andes have a north-south orientation.”
> 
> 
> 
> Besides spurring the formation of mountain ranges, plateaus and the jigsaw fit of the continents, this compression event caused a catastrophic imbalance in the earth’s sphericity, caused by the upthrust of the Himalayan Plateau. The massive thickening of the crust containing the 10 highest peaks on earth produced a net centrifugal force that rolled the Himalayas 35 to 45 degrees toward today’s equator. Brown says this axis tilt explains why plants and animals from warm climates are buried in today’s Polar Regions.
> 
> *Debunking the evolutionary model*
> 
> Brown argues that the evolutionists’ account of a comet, asteroid or volcanic activity triggering the extinction of the dinosaurs is flawed. He contends that only a global flood could have generated a mass rapid burial and fossilization of animals, as all remains would have rotted away if they had died without being submerged in water to preserve them. Brown also explains that fossils’ similar density and mass discovered on the same levels of the geologic column prove that dinosaur remains were sorted and buried just thousands of years ago in a flood, not merely interred hundreds of millions of years ago in a series of mass extinctions.
> 
> Another #+$## in evolutionists’ armor, says Brown, is that the soft bone tissue and DNA found in dinosaur remains could not exist for more than thousands of years. On top of this, he points out that intentionally inflated and incorrect readings of fossils and rocks measured using various dating techniques further put evolutionists’ millions- and billions-of-years-old origins account into disrepute.
> 
> Evolutionary stories describing gradual erosion taking place over millions of years to form various natural wonders have also been shot down by Brown’s geological observations in and around the Grand Canyon, the Strait of Gibraltar and the channel under the Golden Gate Bridge. He presents evidence that these were carved by rapid erosion from nearby breaches of large bodies of water, which carved out these marvels of nature in a matter of weeks or months, not millions of years.
> 
> In addition to the aforementioned arguments for a young earth, Brown also turns to the Bible to dispel dozens of theistic evolution claims. One fundamental teaching from the Bible, that sin preceded death (Genesis 2:17, 3:1-24; Romans 5:12, 6:23), demonstrates that evolution is not compatible with Scripture, as naturalistic doctrine claims that animals and “primitive” humans died for untold millions of years before Adam and Eve’s original sin approximately 7,000 years ago, conversely stating that death preceded sin.
> 
> Brown examines other phenomena and topics that provide further evidence for the Bible’s accuracy and a young earth, including Noah’s Ark; symbiotic relationships; strange planets; the moon’s dust, origin and recession; planetary rings; a faint, young sun; the first and second laws of thermodynamics; the devolving of languages; biblical genealogies; mutations; mitochondrial Eve; and many more in his book.
> 
> As a former evolutionist and atheist, Brown is quite familiar with all the arguments from the other side. But does his flood account hold water to competing theories?
> 
> For decades, evolutionists and creationists alike have refused to debate Brown’s scientific findings. He has a few stipulations – that the debate is published in a major scientific journal, that his opponent supporting evolution hold a doctorate and that religion is not discussed in the debate, only scientific data.
> 
> Brown reports some 50 of the circumstances he would expect to see develop under his theory have been documented and concludes that it is the Bible’s description of origins that are, simply, scientific


ki


LittleNipper said:


> *Does Science Prove Noah's Flood? *
> 
> 
> 06/03/12 9:51 AM
> 
> *
> Marianne Loves
> Yeshua HaMashiach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> *WND EXCLUSIVE*
> *Does science prove Noah's flood?*
> *Evidence of flood hydroplate theory cited to support biblical account*
> Published: 17 hours ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *By Michael Haverluck*
> 
> For decades, science books in America’s schools have taught that the earth is billions of years old, with the Big Bang bursting through the universe some 14.3 billion years ago. They teach children that bacteria has been around a billion years or so and that the “Precambrian Explosion” some 500 million years ago launched some of the earliest forms of life.
> 
> But what if the evidence doesn’t support that? What if scientific observation suggests that the Bible’s literal account of thousands of years is right.
> 
> That is the position of Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.
> 
> His own scientific credentials are impressive. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College.
> 
> His blunt assessment is that some evolutionary explanations would be more relevant at a Star Wars convention than in a science classroom. Pangaea, plate tectonics and asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs might work in state-issued textbooks, but they do not pass the scrutiny of Brown’s scientific research.
> 
> In the Eighth edition of his book “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,” Brown presents his hydroplate theory, which unfolds scientific evidence that the earth’s present geologic features and fossils were formed around 5,000 years ago — not untold millions or billions of years ago. He asserts that the global flood recorded in Genesis 7 is the mechanism that created the geologic, astronomical and biological phenomena witnesseed today.
> 
> A major motivation that has propelled Brown’s decades of research has been his quest to give Christian students answers that will withstand scrutiny when challenged by Darwinist theories within the classroom. He notes that he does not rely on faith, miracles or sped-up evolutionary processes to buttress his theory – only observable and calculable data.
> 
> *More Water*
> 
> According to Brown, the earth was an extremely different place before Noah’s flood. Oceans were much shallower and mountains much lower. He notes that it is no coincidence that more than 230 flood legends – with many common elements such as a sole surviving family in a boat – exist from every corner of the earth. In fact, the flood of Noah is the very device that sets Brown’s hydroplate theory in motion.
> 
> _Atheists have scoffed at its mention and religionists have denied it’s truth, but here’s the scientific and archaeological evidence of “The Red Sea Crossing.”_
> 
> Many skeptics ponder how the entire earth could have been covered in water, especially with many mountain ranges extending miles into the sky. Brown argues that pre-flood oceans contained half their present volume of water and that the Earth’s massive mountain ranges were not yet pushed up.
> 
> Brown contends that “water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere” if the earth’s surface was completely smooth, easily covering the low-lying mountains that existed at the time of the flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tapping into the scientific validity of the Bible, Brown lets the book of Genesis uncork the source of the floodwaters that reshaped the earth to its present appearance.
> 
> “In the 600th year of Noah’s life, on the 17th day of the second month – on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened,” reads Genesis 7:11-12. “And rain fell on the Earth 40 days and 40 nights.”
> 
> For those wondering where such torrents of water would originate, Brown also has students examine the beginning of the Bible’s first book, which specifies that underground waters were set in place on the second day of Creation.
> 
> “And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water,’” states Genesis 1:6-7. “So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.”
> 
> This expanse, says Brown, is the earth’s crust separating the shallow oceans and seas above from the water trapped underneath, before much of it jettisoned during the flood two millennia later.
> 
> “About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface,” explains Brown. “The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least three-quarters of a mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle.”
> 
> Brown gives a visual of what he calculates the earth looked like before catastrophic forces pushed mountains tens of thousands of feet higher.
> 
> “Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas were … joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown asserts. “On the pre-flood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains – generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.”
> 
> Yet not all subterranean water escaped during the flood, asserts Brown. He argues that earthquakes provide evidence that oceans of water still exist underneath the crust, noting that only underground channels of water could rapidly transmit shockwaves thousands of miles from the epicenter.
> 
> _See the “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evoluation III” and “Something Transhuman This Way Comes.”_
> 
> Effects of this transmission are evidenced around lakes, where the crust is thinner. If the shockwaves were going through solid rock, instead of water, the earthquake’s effects would never extend great distances, as it did after an Alaskan earthquake, when transmitted shockwaves broke boat moorings in Louisiana’s Lake Pontchartrain ─ more than 4,000 miles away.
> 
> *Dishing out the hydroplate theory*
> 
> Because of tidal pumping forces increasing the water pressure beneath the miles of rock over the centuries, the crust stretched like an inflating balloon, says Brown. This pressure triggered a crack that ended up rupturing the earth’s crust – a process that Brown calculates took about two hours to wrap around the globe.
> 
> 
> 
> “As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth,” Brown explained. “Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped [and] caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep ‘slit’ that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.”
> 
> To relate the magnitude of this release, Brown equates it to the impact of 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs, ripping a tear down the middle of the Atlantic, veering beneath Africa and Australia, running north a couple thousand miles off South America’s west coast, dipping under North America off Mexico’s west coast to Alaska, resurfacing in the Arctic Circle and continuing down through Iceland.
> 
> _To see a video presentation of the theory, Click here._
> 
> “All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path approximates today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and far above the atmosphere,” posits Brown. “Some of the water fragmented into an ‘ocean’ of droplets that fell as rain such as the earth has never experienced – before or after.”
> 
> According to Brown, this cataclysmic event had more than geologic effects.
> 
> “Other jetting water rose above the atmosphere, where it froze and then fell on various regions of earth as huge masses of extreme cold, muddy ‘hail,’” Brown stated. “That hail buried, suffocated and froze many animals, including some mammoths.”
> 
> Brown notes that this explains how mammoths froze in minutes while still chewing vegetation, which requires temperatures of -150 degrees Fahrenheit – colder than any natural temperatures ever recorded on earth.
> 
> The effects were of astronomical proportions, as well, says Brown.
> 
> “The most powerful jetting water and rock debris escaped earth’s gravity and became the solar system’s comets, asteroids and meteoroids,” Brown claims.
> 
> To buttress this assertion, Brown adds that numerous cosmic bodies in the solar system possess scientifically documented characteristics that support the earth’s supersonic expulsion – such as spin, density, composition, size, number, texture and orbital measurements. He credits this event with creating craters on the moon and terrestrial planets, many containing craters on their outer-facing sides with ice still inside of them.
> 
> The earth itself is also replete with many topological features formed during the flood. Ocean trenches are one of these phenomena.
> 
> “Deep folds, up to thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie at the floor of the western Pacific Ocean in an area centered directly opposite of the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown explains. “As the flood increasingly altered the earth’s balanced, spherical shape, growing gravitational forces tended to squeeze the earth back toward a more spherical shape.”
> 
> Brown argues there are 15 reasons why the massive plates on the earth’s surface cannot dive into the earth and drag down the folds – one being his scientific explanation and diagram demonstrating why such pressure would crush the plate, not pull it down.
> 
> “Once a ‘tipping point’ was reached, the portion of the subterranean chamber floor – with the most overlying rock removed – rose at least eight miles to become today’s Atlantic floor,” Brown added. “This caused the Pacific floor ─ the region inside the Ring of Fire ─ to sink and buckle inward, producing folds called ocean trenches.”
> 
> In other words, the outburst and pressure release on the Atlantic side caused suction on the opposite side of the globe, pulling down the area where the world’s deepest ocean trenches (around the Pacific Rim) are concentrated today.
> 
> Brown points to the tens of thousands of volcanoes formed inside the “Ring of Fire” ─ where 90 percent of earthquakes originate ─ as modern evidence of the massive pressure release and drop of the Pacific Rim that formed this volcanic zone during the flood.
> 
> *Let it roll*
> 
> Even with the plummet of the Pacific floor, the most earth-changing event was yet to occur, as Brown contends that once the fountains of the great deep came to a halt after 40 days, other mechanisms were set into motion. He notes that these fountains that pushed up the crust on both sides to form the 46,000-mile Mid-Oceanic Ridge not only flooded the world; they produced massive amounts of sediment from the eroded rock that buried plants and animals to form the stratified fossil record.
> 
> “Then the hydroplates slid down and away from the inclining Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” Brown describes, illustrating how this separated the east coast of North and South America from Europe and Africa. “Once the gradually advancing plates reached speeds of about 45 miles per hour, they would collide, compress and buckle.”
> 
> Brown credits the process with fashioning today’s topography, comparing the event to a train falling down railroad tracks after being lifted in the middle. He notes that once the railway cars (hydroplates) run out of track (subterranean water), they lose momentum, crumple and jackknife. The 46,000-mile earth-encircling rupture quickly grew to an average width of 800 miles, says Brown, and when the subterranean water ceased escaping, the remaining water acted as a lubricant to propel the hydroplates.
> 
> “The plates that buckled downward became ocean trenches, and those that buckled upward became mountains,” Brown clarified. “This explains why large mountain ranges are in correlation to their oceanic ridges. Naturally, the long axis of each buckled mountain was generally perpendicular to its hydroplate’s motion or parallel to the portion of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge from which it slid. So the Rocky Mountains, Appalachians and Andes have a north-south orientation.”
> 
> 
> 
> Besides spurring the formation of mountain ranges, plateaus and the jigsaw fit of the continents, this compression event caused a catastrophic imbalance in the earth’s sphericity, caused by the upthrust of the Himalayan Plateau. The massive thickening of the crust containing the 10 highest peaks on earth produced a net centrifugal force that rolled the Himalayas 35 to 45 degrees toward today’s equator. Brown says this axis tilt explains why plants and animals from warm climates are buried in today’s Polar Regions.
> 
> *Debunking the evolutionary model*
> 
> Brown argues that the evolutionists’ account of a comet, asteroid or volcanic activity triggering the extinction of the dinosaurs is flawed. He contends that only a global flood could have generated a mass rapid burial and fossilization of animals, as all remains would have rotted away if they had died without being submerged in water to preserve them. Brown also explains that fossils’ similar density and mass discovered on the same levels of the geologic column prove that dinosaur remains were sorted and buried just thousands of years ago in a flood, not merely interred hundreds of millions of years ago in a series of mass extinctions.
> 
> Another #+$## in evolutionists’ armor, says Brown, is that the soft bone tissue and DNA found in dinosaur remains could not exist for more than thousands of years. On top of this, he points out that intentionally inflated and incorrect readings of fossils and rocks measured using various dating techniques further put evolutionists’ millions- and billions-of-years-old origins account into disrepute.
> 
> Evolutionary stories describing gradual erosion taking place over millions of years to form various natural wonders have also been shot down by Brown’s geological observations in and around the Grand Canyon, the Strait of Gibraltar and the channel under the Golden Gate Bridge. He presents evidence that these were carved by rapid erosion from nearby breaches of large bodies of water, which carved out these marvels of nature in a matter of weeks or months, not millions of years.
> 
> In addition to the aforementioned arguments for a young earth, Brown also turns to the Bible to dispel dozens of theistic evolution claims. One fundamental teaching from the Bible, that sin preceded death (Genesis 2:17, 3:1-24; Romans 5:12, 6:23), demonstrates that evolution is not compatible with Scripture, as naturalistic doctrine claims that animals and “primitive” humans died for untold millions of years before Adam and Eve’s original sin approximately 7,000 years ago, conversely stating that death preceded sin.
> 
> Brown examines other phenomena and topics that provide further evidence for the Bible’s accuracy and a young earth, including Noah’s Ark; symbiotic relationships; strange planets; the moon’s dust, origin and recession; planetary rings; a faint, young sun; the first and second laws of thermodynamics; the devolving of languages; biblical genealogies; mutations; mitochondrial Eve; and many more in his book.
> 
> As a former evolutionist and atheist, Brown is quite familiar with all the arguments from the other side. But does his flood account hold water to competing theories?
> 
> For decades, evolutionists and creationists alike have refused to debate Brown’s scientific findings. He has a few stipulations – that the debate is published in a major scientific journal, that his opponent supporting evolution hold a doctorate and that religion is not discussed in the debate, only scientific data.
> 
> Brown reports some 50 of the circumstances he would expect to see develop under his theory have been documented and concludes that it is the Bible’s description of origins that are, simply, scientific


I'm guessing this post is kind of a challenge to me. I'll admit when I saw these 2 posts I was a bit worried. The cheer volume of the information on here made me a bit apprehensive. This post has done something I've tried very hard to avoid, namely the copy and pasting from entire articles. For one it feels like cheating a little bit, since your not voicing your own thaughts, and to me personally it doesn't say anything of your debating skill but more about your ability to webbrowse. Theirs nothing wrong whith browsing the web and even posting parts of articles to clarify and reiterate your point, but taking them wholesale seems a bit easy.
Now to the posts themself, I've read both articles carefully and afterwarths I've done some webbrowsing of my own. The first points of the rebuke I'll make are the things that became apparent to me. I'll make those first. First of all, in the first post theirs assumptions being made that I immediatly pegged as wrong. First of all it's being implied that regular science has no way of explaining polystrata fossils. I'm a layman but I can think of at least one, earthquakes. I know they litteraly shift the ground and at the fault line the different strata wont be alligned. Second it's implied that science doesn't explain how fossils start because fossilasation requires carcasses to be submerged immediatly. Regular science doesn't deny the conditions needed for fossilation and they also don't deny the existence of flooding, how can they it happens today too. Flashfloods and tsunamies are well documented so saying science don't recognice them is pretty stupid. Thirdly his moving boulders. Here he implies there's no other explanation then a flood. While I know that scientist have linked those boulders to glestjers moving during the ice ages. I also read a bit about science vessels digging up cores from the Gulf of Mexico, I found that segment particulary weird, first of they talk about timeperiods of around 12000 years wich of itself is longer then creationist think the earth existed and secondly even weirder I think, they apperently drew from localised samples in the Gulf of Mexico that the same thing happened WORLDWIDE. How do you draw that conclussion is beyond me. Another disrepudancy is the Black Sea bit. The article states that it may be the basis of the Noah Myth. I kinda agree with that, it sounds logical and there is actual evidence to support it, but how it helps the Creationist cause is beyond me.
The second article I've noticed 2 things. First of all quotes Genesis with in Noahs 600 year of life. 600 Year old ppl are simply unsustainable. If Brown is like he said using scientific fact he should be able to explain how a person gets to be that old, using science not biblical quotes. I also noted this "Brown argues there are 15 reasons why the massive plates on the earth’s surface cannot dive into the earth and drag down the folds" and a couple of lines further "The plates that buckled downward became ocean trenches, and those that buckled upward became mountains,” Brown clarified. “This explains why large mountain ranges are in correlation to their oceanic ridges." *He littarely contradicts himself.*
Now comes the part of my reasons I've found while browsing the web. These are not all the ways  to debunk but these are the ones that stuck with me. I did all my reading about 8 hours ago. First of all the credentials.Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix. which consist of him and him alone. You can give yourself any title you want of course but it seems intellectually dishonest to me. Second he does hold a degree from MIT but one in electrical engineering and not like you would expect by his model one in geoligy or geophysics.
His hydroplate model would need a perfectly flat surface to work since any blemish would have caused the eruption to happen immediatly but the creation story sais god created mountains on one of the days of creation. 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs To grasp the enormity of that number, note that the entire surface of the Earth (including the oceans) has only about 510 trillion square meters. That means that if even 1% (still generous to Brown) of the energy were left on earth, it would be the equivalent of over 3 H-bombs for every square meter on earth! and yet Noah survived that heat in a wooden boat. Meteorites and comets make up at least 100 times the total mass of the Earth so claiming they are from earth is like claiming a mouse gave birth to an elephant. Carcasses aren't the only things that fossilised. Footprints and nest have been found to. How does that get preserved trough a global flood? On and on. I'll give you the link you'll find numerous other things to but I feel I made my point.Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water


----------



## LittleNipper

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research/investigation/educational thought to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.


----------



## forkup

LittleNipper said:


> GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.
> 
> However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific researdh to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.


Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonim to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.


----------



## LittleNipper

forkup said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.
> 
> However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.
Click to expand...


What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in.  It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................


----------



## forkup

LittleNipper said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.
> 
> However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in.  It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................
Click to expand...

There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw *Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics?* The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But *when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?*


----------



## LittleNipper

forkup said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.
> 
> However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in.  It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw *Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics?* The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But *when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?*
Click to expand...

The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.


----------



## BreezeWood

LittleNipper said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.
> 
> However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in.  It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw *Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics?* The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But *when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.
Click to expand...





LittleNipper said:


> You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material











   .
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




from approximately the same distance both celestial objects are "inert" however because of varying factors the probability of one to manifest organic compounds is exponentially more probable than the other and in fact an almost certainty over time more likely than not to occur.

inert material alone is not the determining factor.

.


----------



## forkup

LittleNipper said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.
> 
> However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in.  It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw *Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics?* The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But *when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.
Click to expand...

First of all, I notice you didn't answer my questions. So you are saying that you and all creasionist are right and the rest should just let your clearly wrong beliefs be thaught to all children? As to the second bit. Troughout history man has called a divine being into everything they can't explain. From early naturist religions trough the Egyptians, Norse,Greco into current Monotheistic religions. In all these instances with knowledge,religion was proven wrong over and over again. In this day and age I can Identify 2 places Science can't go yet. The start of life on this planet and the beginning of the universe. Science provides an hypothesis for the start of life and an accepted theory for the evolving of it. I have no problem whith saying that in absence of an accepted theory of the start of life, God is equally valid. I consider it unlikely but since that"s just an opinion I won't debate it. The same can be said for the beginning of the universe. Plenty of hypothesis not any real proof. On the other hand there is an enormous body of evidence disproving Genisis and confirming Evolution, so like I said unless every  field of science is fundamentelly flawed it's not possible Creationism works. You where saying science puts itself into corners. Science doesn't provide ALL answers, it does however provide a relentless search for them. Religion and especially Creationism is so narrow in it beliefs that it took me 1 post for you to invoke a miracle in order to let Noah survive if that's not painting you in a corner I don't know what is.


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.
> 
> However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in.  It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw *Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics?* The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But *when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, I notice you didn't answer my questions. So you are saying that you and all creasionist are right and the rest should just let your clearly wrong beliefs be thaught to all children? As to the second bit. Troughout history man has called a divine being into everything they can't explain. From early naturist religions trough the Egyptians, Norse,Greco into current Monotheistic religions. In all these instances with knowledge,religion was proven wrong over and over again. In this day and age I can Identify 2 places Science can't go yet. The start of life on this planet and the beginning of the universe. Science provides an hypothesis for the start of life and an accepted theory for the evolving of it. I have no problem whith saying that in absence of an accepted theory of the start of life, God is equally valid. I consider it unlikely but since that"s just an opinion I won't debate it. The same can be said for the beginning of the universe. Plenty of hypothesis not any real proof. On the other hand there is an enormous body of evidence disproving Genisis and confirming Evolution, so like I said unless every  field of science is fundamentelly flawed it's not possible Creationism works. You where saying science puts itself into corners. Science doesn't provide ALL answers, it does however provide a relentless search for them. Religion and especially Creationism is so narrow in it beliefs that it took me 1 post for you to invoke a miracle in order to let Noah survive if that's not painting you in a corner I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

I have to put out a revision. I didn't mean the beginning of the universe because we obviously know there was a big bang, what science can't explain yet is what caused, or what came before the big bang. Sorry for the confusion this may have caused.


----------



## LittleNipper

forkup said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.
> 
> However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in.  It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw *Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics?* The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But *when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, I notice you didn't answer my questions. So you are saying that you and all creasionist are right and the rest should just let your clearly wrong beliefs be thaught to all children? As to the second bit. Troughout history man has called a divine being into everything they can't explain. From early naturist religions trough the Egyptians, Norse,Greco into current Monotheistic religions. In all these instances with knowledge,religion was proven wrong over and over again. In this day and age I can Identify 2 places Science can't go yet. The start of life on this planet and the beginning of the universe. Science provides an hypothesis for the start of life and an accepted theory for the evolving of it. I have no problem whith saying that in absence of an accepted theory of the start of life, God is equally valid. I consider it unlikely but since that"s just an opinion I won't debate it. The same can be said for the beginning of the universe. Plenty of hypothesis not any real proof. On the other hand there is an enormous body of evidence disproving Genisis and confirming Evolution, so like I said unless every  field of science is fundamentelly flawed it's not possible Creationism works. You where saying science puts itself into corners. Science doesn't provide ALL answers, it does however provide a relentless search for them. Religion and especially Creationism is so narrow in it beliefs that it took me 1 post for you to invoke a miracle in order to let Noah survive if that's not painting you in a corner I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Have evolutionists proven that there is no GOD? Have Uniformitarians proven there was no Worldwide Flood? It seems to me that such questions can go both ways. Catholics, Muslims and Jews All accept the Bible  as the authoritative. The Pope is wrong concerning unmarried priests, why should he be correct in an understanding of evolution. Creation provides a valid case for GOD, yet Evolutionists are the only ones allowed to hypothesize educationally speaking. Miracles do happen unless you can prove otherwise.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Nyet.  I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.  What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote.  The church ruled science.  This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism.  That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin.  So mainly, it was the other way around.  See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG.  I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force."  I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working.  See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks?  LOL.  I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.  Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20.  Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe.  The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible.  While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up.  Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works.  So evolution changes.  Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
> 
> If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link.  Why is it biased?  Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today.  They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp.  Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
> 
> The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution.  Evo need billions of years.  If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
> 
> Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences:  If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors.  If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
> 
> Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
> 
> So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you.  Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.
Click to expand...


You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong.  Science has no proofs.  That is the nature of science.  Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science.  Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives.  If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.

So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics.  How does it do that?  What happens to the rocks that are formed.  Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct?  And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim?  You need to explain yourself.

What verses of the Bible are you referring to?  Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion.  The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers.  People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.

Then you ramble on to astrology.  What does that have to do with what we are discussing?  Do you mean cosmology?  That is just scientific philosophy or guessing.  One can't trust that as being scientific.

Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist.  He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory.  Convenient you left this part out.  Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year.  Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science?  That's why you continue to look bad.


----------



## james bond

ChrisL said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are great.  You are kicking ass in this thread!
Click to expand...


Sez the person who does not know his arse from a hole in the ground lol.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


james bond said:


> Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.




reading your post is entertaining ...

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

.


----------



## forkup

LittleNipper said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in.  It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw *Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics?* The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But *when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, I notice you didn't answer my questions. So you are saying that you and all creasionist are right and the rest should just let your clearly wrong beliefs be thaught to all children? As to the second bit. Troughout history man has called a divine being into everything they can't explain. From early naturist religions trough the Egyptians, Norse,Greco into current Monotheistic religions. In all these instances with knowledge,religion was proven wrong over and over again. In this day and age I can Identify 2 places Science can't go yet. The start of life on this planet and the beginning of the universe. Science provides an hypothesis for the start of life and an accepted theory for the evolving of it. I have no problem whith saying that in absence of an accepted theory of the start of life, God is equally valid. I consider it unlikely but since that"s just an opinion I won't debate it. The same can be said for the beginning of the universe. Plenty of hypothesis not any real proof. On the other hand there is an enormous body of evidence disproving Genisis and confirming Evolution, so like I said unless every  field of science is fundamentelly flawed it's not possible Creationism works. You where saying science puts itself into corners. Science doesn't provide ALL answers, it does however provide a relentless search for them. Religion and especially Creationism is so narrow in it beliefs that it took me 1 post for you to invoke a miracle in order to let Noah survive if that's not painting you in a corner I don't know what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have evolutionists proven that there is no GOD? Have Uniformitarians proven there was no Worldwide Flood? It seems to me that such questions can go both ways. Catholics, Muslims and Jews All accept the Bible  as the authoritative. The Pope is wrong concerning unmarried priests, why should he be correct in an understanding of evolution. Creation provides a valid case for GOD, yet Evolutionists are the only ones allowed to hypothesize educationally speaking. Miracles do happen unless you can prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Proof there is no God. I think i already said I can't. I did point out, that God is not a new idea nore that your version of believing is a very popular one. Proof there was no worldwide flood. I most certainly can. Geological layers are chronoligical. They all appear in the same order. Not all layers are in every rock sample but what is there is always in the same order. There have been worldwide cataclysmic events that appear in all the rocklayers. Several mass extinction events actually. A worldwide flood is not one of those geoligical events we can identify. See it's not enough to find proof of flooding , you need to find flooding worldwide in the same strata. See proof given. Creationist can hypothesese as much as they want, providing those hypotheses go trough the same process as all science, namely hypothesese, experiment, peer review and constant testing and even more importantly if those hypothesis proof faulty that they be abandoned. As to miracles, If I would claim I've seen a unicorn, is the burden of proof then on you to say it's not true? Miracles are very convinient because it absolves you from the need to proof anything, I don't mind it as long as you don't try to call it scientific at the same time.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reading your post is entertaining ...
> 
> the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Good question, BreezeWood.  Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe.  However, God wanted to keep some things secret.  The Bible says that we will never know.  This is another evidence for the existence of God.  However, people will try to find the answer.  The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

This includes the age of the earth, too.  We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
> -I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
> - I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
> -Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
> -We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one  using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
> - We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
> -We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
> I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong.  Science has no proofs.  That is the nature of science.  Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science.  Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives.  If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.
> 
> So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics.  How does it do that?  What happens to the rocks that are formed.  Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct?  And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim?  You need to explain yourself.
> 
> What verses of the Bible are you referring to?  Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion.  The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers.  People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.
> 
> Then you ramble on to astrology.  What does that have to do with what we are discussing?  Do you mean cosmology?  That is just scientific philosophy or guessing.  One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist.  He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory.  Convenient you left this part out.  Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year.  Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science?  That's why you continue to look bad.
Click to expand...

-Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1  God, then there was  1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
-I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.

Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: _craie bleue_) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]
that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
Oh look more chalk lol.
-So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
- Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
> 
> 
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong.  Science has no proofs.  That is the nature of science.  Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science.  Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives.  If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.
> 
> So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics.  How does it do that?  What happens to the rocks that are formed.  Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct?  And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim?  You need to explain yourself.
> 
> What verses of the Bible are you referring to?  Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion.  The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers.  People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.
> 
> Then you ramble on to astrology.  What does that have to do with what we are discussing?  Do you mean cosmology?  That is just scientific philosophy or guessing.  One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist.  He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory.  Convenient you left this part out.  Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year.  Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science?  That's why you continue to look bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1  God, then there was  1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
> -I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.
> 
> Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
> Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
> A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: _craie bleue_) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]
> that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
> The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
> Oh look more chalk lol.
> -So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
> If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
> - Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Einstein of course was jewish but it still applies of course.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reading your post is entertaining ...
> 
> the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question, BreezeWood.  Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe.  However, God wanted to keep some things secret.  The Bible says that we will never know.  This is another evidence for the existence of God.  However, people will try to find the answer.  The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.
> 
> This includes the age of the earth, too.  We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.
Click to expand...

Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.


----------



## BreezeWood

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reading your post is entertaining ...
> 
> the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question, BreezeWood.  Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe.  However, God wanted to keep some things secret.  The Bible says that we will never know.  This is another evidence for the existence of God.  However, people will try to find the answer.  The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.
> 
> This includes the age of the earth, too.  We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.





james bond said:


> This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relativ




_*This includes the age of the earth ...*_

this begs the question where biblicist believe the Earth is only 6000 years old ... 



_*This is another evidence for the existence of God.*_

sure, as long as the biblicist denies the obvious they have their belief in not knowing as proof of their God, how self rewarding can it get.









but James, do you notice the pyramid is complete - it would not be if the Apex of Knowledge were not attainable, that is the true sign the Almighty exists and that a Spirit to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting must ascend its summit and to do so in Purity as the message of Noah is demanded or to perish in time with its physiology.

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I post just like here.  In front of all these people.
> 
> Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment.  There should be more chalk and rocks all around.  The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands.  And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago.  Another usurpation.  This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood.  Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water.  Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus.  Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime?  Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
> 
> Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating.  Who created or is credited for it?
> 
> Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion.  I think it has been shown experimentally.  It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized.  It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed.  As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can.  Probably forgot.
> 
> And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
> 
> All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all.  It belongs to ToE.
> 
> 
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong.  Science has no proofs.  That is the nature of science.  Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science.  Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives.  If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.
> 
> So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics.  How does it do that?  What happens to the rocks that are formed.  Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct?  And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim?  You need to explain yourself.
> 
> What verses of the Bible are you referring to?  Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion.  The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers.  People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.
> 
> Then you ramble on to astrology.  What does that have to do with what we are discussing?  Do you mean cosmology?  That is just scientific philosophy or guessing.  One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist.  He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory.  Convenient you left this part out.  Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year.  Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science?  That's why you continue to look bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1  God, then there was  1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
> -I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.
> 
> Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
> Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
> A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: _craie bleue_) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]
> that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
> The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
> Oh look more chalk lol.
> -So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
> If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
> - Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Again, you are wrong.  Absolute proofs do not exist in science which you seem to religiously adhere to.  Certainly absolute proofs exist in the world.  There are facts and historical truths which I state.  There is also reasoning which I adhere to in the form of many good logical arguments like I think therefore I am or mathematical proofs.  In court cases, we can sometimes arrive at absolute proof using evidence and investigation.  One can indeed prove a negative.  What I was stating was in science, it does not and scientific hypothesis can be way wrong.  Scientific principles and laws are pretty much absolute, but I can't say the same for what they call "scientific facts" today.  Dinosaurs going extinct because of volcanoes and then asteroid were taught as fact in some elementary schools.  In the near past, a whole generation believed in the Piltdown Man fabrication as the missing link from apes to human by evolutionary scientists.  Like it, evolution is BS.

And much of the ocean floor does not turn to rock because of sediment.  What you are subscribing to is what uniformitarianism tells you.  We know that catastrophism has much to do with the subduction as well as the moving of the plate tectonics.  We are interested in our oceans because 3/4 of the earth is covered by it and we have not been able to explore its vastness.  Isn't that evidence for Noah's Flood?  If that isn't, then I do not know what is.  What other planets have the kind of situation of water covering 3/4 of the planet?  Today, atheist scientists want us to believe that the universe and the earth is made for life.  To the contrary, it isn't.  Again, they are wrong.  Yet, you continue to spout your science without it being something close to the truth.  If the sediment turns into rock, then where are the diamonds underneath the oceans?  Most of it isn't rock, but crust.  There are some diamonds, but they are rare and the diamonds goes to show there is more water, an oceanful, underneath the crust.  Also, diamonds found in our coal deposits can be radiocarbon date to thousands of years.  They should not be able to be radiocarbon dated if they're really millions of years old.

And the chalk of the White Cliffs of Dover was formed in short time by catastrophism.  Not millions of years of pressure as you and the evolutionists believe.

"For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources.






With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.

The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.

Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean."

I didn't say the Biblical verses were vague.  They're pretty clear if one subscribes to the young earth as I understood it when I read Genesis.  It's the old earth creationists and believers of evolution who have made it vague.  It wasn't that long ago that most scientists believed in the eternal universe.  However, that changed with the findings for The Big Bang Theory and that backed up what the


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> Einstein of course was jewish but it still applies of course.



Huh?

Einstein probably was pantheist and believed in an universal God or one described as a Spinoza God.  

"God does not play dice."  Albert Einstein


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reading your post is entertaining ...
> 
> the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question, BreezeWood.  Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe.  However, God wanted to keep some things secret.  The Bible says that we will never know.  This is another evidence for the existence of God.  However, people will try to find the answer.  The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.
> 
> This includes the age of the earth, too.  We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.
Click to expand...


Ho hum.  More atheist science bias from its wrong conclusions.  See my diamonds statements above.  Also, dinosaur fossils have been dated to a young earth.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reading your post is entertaining ...
> 
> the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question, BreezeWood.  Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe.  However, God wanted to keep some things secret.  The Bible says that we will never know.  This is another evidence for the existence of God.  However, people will try to find the answer.  The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.
> 
> This includes the age of the earth, too.  We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relativ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*This includes the age of the earth ...*_
> 
> this begs the question where biblicist believe the Earth is only 6000 years old ...
> 
> 
> 
> _*This is another evidence for the existence of God.*_
> 
> sure, as long as the biblicist denies the obvious they have their belief in not knowing as proof of their God, how self rewarding can it get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but James, do you notice the pyramid is complete - it would not be if the Apex of Knowledge were not attainable, that is the true sign the Almighty exists and that a Spirit to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting must ascend its summit and to do so in Purity as the message of Noah is demanded or to perish in time with its physiology.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I didn't jump to the conclusions you did.  See how atheists are usually wrong?  I can only present the evidence for a young earth versus an old one.  This does not mean I can pinpoint the exact time and date and where the universe began.  Only surmise the how which is more believable than the evolutionary theories of 14.7 billion year universe and 4.7 billion year earth.

You have to explain what you mean by the pyramids and Apex of Knowledge.  What I gather is the ancient Egyptians were the first civilization to believe in life after death (unlike the first atheists who may have been pygmies in Africa).


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> You have to explain what you mean by the pyramids and Apex of Knowledge.



the pyramid is the Almighty's symbol to humanity that all things are attainable and that knowledge has an apex as a final conclusion, not that any knowledge would be withheld but that the true and final knowledge must be attained through effort - energy.





james bond said:


> God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.



the above is a fundamental flaw for biblicist, it is not that all knowledge is not attainable but that their scriptures have yet to reach the summit and are therefore incomplete -

the evidence of Gods existence is out ability to know and understand what they have accomplished in order to appreciate their existence and is realized at the Apex of Knowledge.



Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?*'

this is where in fact the bible diverts from the real path leading to the Admission to the Everlasting and will remain incomplete as long as biblicist believe the final answer is unattainable by their own flawed scriptures and not the reality Jesus confronted and new to be true.






BreezeWood said:


> the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?



well, I can offer an answer to the question, at the same point of singularity.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
> -The continental crust is typically from *30 km* (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
> So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
> Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
> -This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, *show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?*
> On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
> Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is _tiny_ and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
> 
> "Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
> On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
> -Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.* I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.*
> -Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
> I can go on and on but you get the picture.
> -You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe  on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
> Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
> *Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong.  Science has no proofs.  That is the nature of science.  Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science.  Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives.  If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.
> 
> So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics.  How does it do that?  What happens to the rocks that are formed.  Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct?  And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim?  You need to explain yourself.
> 
> What verses of the Bible are you referring to?  Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion.  The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers.  People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.
> 
> Then you ramble on to astrology.  What does that have to do with what we are discussing?  Do you mean cosmology?  That is just scientific philosophy or guessing.  One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist.  He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory.  Convenient you left this part out.  Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year.  Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science?  That's why you continue to look bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1  God, then there was  1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
> -I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.
> 
> Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
> Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
> A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: _craie bleue_) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]
> that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
> The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
> Oh look more chalk lol.
> -So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
> If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
> - Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  Absolute proofs do not exist in science which you seem to religiously adhere to.  Certainly absolute proofs exist in the world.  There are facts and historical truths which I state.  There is also reasoning which I adhere to in the form of many good logical arguments like I think therefore I am or mathematical proofs.  In court cases, we can sometimes arrive at absolute proof using evidence and investigation.  One can indeed prove a negative.  What I was stating was in science, it does not and scientific hypothesis can be way wrong.  Scientific principles and laws are pretty much absolute, but I can't say the same for what they call "scientific facts" today.  Dinosaurs going extinct because of volcanoes and then asteroid were taught as fact in some elementary schools.  In the near past, a whole generation believed in the Piltdown Man fabrication as the missing link from apes to human by evolutionary scientists.  Like it, evolution is BS.
> 
> And much of the ocean floor does not turn to rock because of sediment.  What you are subscribing to is what uniformitarianism tells you.  We know that catastrophism has much to do with the subduction as well as the moving of the plate tectonics.  We are interested in our oceans because 3/4 of the earth is covered by it and we have not been able to explore its vastness.  Isn't that evidence for Noah's Flood?  If that isn't, then I do not know what is.  What other planets have the kind of situation of water covering 3/4 of the planet?  Today, atheist scientists want us to believe that the universe and the earth is made for life.  To the contrary, it isn't.  Again, they are wrong.  Yet, you continue to spout your science without it being something close to the truth.  If the sediment turns into rock, then where are the diamonds underneath the oceans?  Most of it isn't rock, but crust.  There are some diamonds, but they are rare and the diamonds goes to show there is more water, an oceanful, underneath the crust.  Also, diamonds found in our coal deposits can be radiocarbon date to thousands of years.  They should not be able to be radiocarbon dated if they're really millions of years old.
> 
> And the chalk of the White Cliffs of Dover was formed in short time by catastrophism.  Not millions of years of pressure as you and the evolutionists believe.
> 
> "For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.
> 
> The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.
> 
> Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean."
> 
> I didn't say the Biblical verses were vague.  They're pretty clear if one subscribes to the young earth as I understood it when I read Genesis.  It's the old earth creationists and believers of evolution who have made it vague.  It wasn't that long ago that most scientists believed in the eternal universe.  However, that changed with the findings for The Big Bang Theory and that backed up what the
Click to expand...

What historical facts have you ever stated? The only certainty there is in history is dates and even then they might be wrong, because sources might be wrong. I'm still waiting for you to give any logical reasons. *Im also still waiting for you to give me a reason why the species appear i chronological order.* In other words you see a clear biological record of singlecell to multicell to aquatic, to early amphibians, to reptiles and so on and so forth. What LOGICAL reason is there for that. All species where created togheter, why did they die in such a  particular order?
What are you talking about when you say the fact that we can't explore the oceans vastness is a proof of the flood???? First of all man has been at the deepest place in the ocean and the reason it is difficult is because of pressure.
One more thing this is related to your whole bioligical decaying
*How did coal get layered?* *If a global flood happened how did it coal beds to become layered. If everything gets flooded there's no reason it to be buried at different times. You talk about succesive deposits like it doesn't create a huge problem. But this was a single massive event so everything should have happened in one go. Where is the flood strata? Where is the strata that proofs GLOBAL flooding? It should appear somewhere in the geoligical record at the same chronological order to be valid?
And I see you completly dodged my radiocarbon post, simply refused to answer, lol I can't say I'm not used to you not answering direct questions*


----------



## Militants

Asa Tor is Swedish God I truely know. 

God of Thunder he is also.

Asa Father Oden are Nordic God.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to explain what you mean by the pyramids and Apex of Knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the pyramid is the Almighty's symbol to humanity that all things are attainable and that knowledge has an apex as a final conclusion, not that any knowledge would be withheld but that the true and final knowledge must be attained through effort - energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the above is a fundamental flaw for biblicist, it is not that all knowledge is not attainable but that their scriptures have yet to reach the summit and are therefore incomplete -
> 
> the evidence of Gods existence is out ability to know and understand what they have accomplished in order to appreciate their existence and is realized at the Apex of Knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?*'
> 
> this is where in fact the bible diverts from the real path leading to the Admission to the Everlasting and will remain incomplete as long as biblicist believe the final answer is unattainable by their own flawed scriptures and not the reality Jesus confronted and new to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, I can offer an answer to the question, at the same point of singularity.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I would think it's "My science, my science, my atheist friends, my atheist friends why have you mislead me?"  Atheists will find this out when they die.  If it's not the end, then your consciousness will have to decide on which way to go or which door to open.  This is the time right before death or near-death.  What happens when one dies, that we do not know.  It's when one goes beyond, cannot return and is not on this earth no more.  If the atheists are right, then nothing happens.  If the creationists are right, then one has to find their way.

As for the point of singularity, that is your "faith" in evolution.  To me, it's just more evolutionary BS.  It's theoretical.  Even if it is real, it is someplace where on cannot reach or know where to go.  If one cannot reach or be certain of the POS (fitting acronym indeed), then science backs up what the Bible says.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.  Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics.  However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea.  Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:
> 
> "Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.
> 
> While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.
> 
> The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."
> 
> I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years.  There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor.  The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment.  Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.
> 
> I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance.  What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong.  Science has no proofs.  That is the nature of science.  Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science.  Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives.  If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.
> 
> So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics.  How does it do that?  What happens to the rocks that are formed.  Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct?  And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim?  You need to explain yourself.
> 
> What verses of the Bible are you referring to?  Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion.  The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers.  People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.
> 
> Then you ramble on to astrology.  What does that have to do with what we are discussing?  Do you mean cosmology?  That is just scientific philosophy or guessing.  One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist.  He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory.  Convenient you left this part out.  Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year.  Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science?  That's why you continue to look bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1  God, then there was  1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
> -I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.
> 
> Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
> Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
> A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: _craie bleue_) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]
> that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
> The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
> Oh look more chalk lol.
> -So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
> If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
> - Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are wrong.  Absolute proofs do not exist in science which you seem to religiously adhere to.  Certainly absolute proofs exist in the world.  There are facts and historical truths which I state.  There is also reasoning which I adhere to in the form of many good logical arguments like I think therefore I am or mathematical proofs.  In court cases, we can sometimes arrive at absolute proof using evidence and investigation.  One can indeed prove a negative.  What I was stating was in science, it does not and scientific hypothesis can be way wrong.  Scientific principles and laws are pretty much absolute, but I can't say the same for what they call "scientific facts" today.  Dinosaurs going extinct because of volcanoes and then asteroid were taught as fact in some elementary schools.  In the near past, a whole generation believed in the Piltdown Man fabrication as the missing link from apes to human by evolutionary scientists.  Like it, evolution is BS.
> 
> And much of the ocean floor does not turn to rock because of sediment.  What you are subscribing to is what uniformitarianism tells you.  We know that catastrophism has much to do with the subduction as well as the moving of the plate tectonics.  We are interested in our oceans because 3/4 of the earth is covered by it and we have not been able to explore its vastness.  Isn't that evidence for Noah's Flood?  If that isn't, then I do not know what is.  What other planets have the kind of situation of water covering 3/4 of the planet?  Today, atheist scientists want us to believe that the universe and the earth is made for life.  To the contrary, it isn't.  Again, they are wrong.  Yet, you continue to spout your science without it being something close to the truth.  If the sediment turns into rock, then where are the diamonds underneath the oceans?  Most of it isn't rock, but crust.  There are some diamonds, but they are rare and the diamonds goes to show there is more water, an oceanful, underneath the crust.  Also, diamonds found in our coal deposits can be radiocarbon date to thousands of years.  They should not be able to be radiocarbon dated if they're really millions of years old.
> 
> And the chalk of the White Cliffs of Dover was formed in short time by catastrophism.  Not millions of years of pressure as you and the evolutionists believe.
> 
> "For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood.
> 
> The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events.
> 
> Additional evidence for a global Flood in the White Cliffs of Dover includes the layering of the chalk in alternating thin, hard layers and thick, soft layers. In these hard layers, called hardgrounds, we find fossils of mollusk shells and other sea creatures, some as large as 3 feet (1 m) across (ammonites), which could not have been buried alive slowly! The same chalk formation in the Netherlands has yielded a very large Mosasaurus skull. Since sea life was not part of Noah’s cargo on the Ark, they had to endure the ravages of the Flood. Marine life would have been swept into the rapidly forming chalk and other sedimentary layers and quickly buried by successive deposits. That is why we find fossils of sea creatures in even the highest chalk layers, now far above the ocean."
> 
> I didn't say the Biblical verses were vague.  They're pretty clear if one subscribes to the young earth as I understood it when I read Genesis.  It's the old earth creationists and believers of evolution who have made it vague.  It wasn't that long ago that most scientists believed in the eternal universe.  However, that changed with the findings for The Big Bang Theory and that backed up what the
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What historical facts have you ever stated? The only certainty there is in history is dates and even then they might be wrong, because sources might be wrong. I'm still waiting for you to give any logical reasons. *Im also still waiting for you to give me a reason why the species appear i chronological order.* In other words you see a clear biological record of singlecell to multicell to aquatic, to early amphibians, to reptiles and so on and so forth. What LOGICAL reason is there for that. All species where created togheter, why did they die in such a  particular order?
> What are you talking about when you say the fact that we can't explore the oceans vastness is a proof of the flood???? First of all man has been at the deepest place in the ocean and the reason it is difficult is because of pressure.
> One more thing this is related to your whole bioligical decaying
> *How did coal get layered?* *If a global flood happened how did it coal beds to become layered. If everything gets flooded there's no reason it to be buried at different times. You talk about succesive deposits like it doesn't create a huge problem. But this was a single massive event so everything should have happened in one go. Where is the flood strata? Where is the strata that proofs GLOBAL flooding? It should appear somewhere in the geoligical record at the same chronological order to be valid?
> And I see you completly dodged my radiocarbon post, simply refused to answer, lol I can't say I'm not used to you not answering direct questions*
Click to expand...


I'm sure I posted how science backs up the Bible -- Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles? .  I pointed out the beginnings of uniformitarianism in 1795 and the arguments between creationists and early evolutionists in the 1800s.  Along the way, I have been pointing out where the evolutionists have been wrong with their hypothesis such as the eternal universe theory or even the stationary universe theory (pseudoscience), single tree of life (pseudoscience), Darwin was wrong about similar species competing for the same foods and resources, Piltdown Man (fraud), theories of dinosaur extinction has been wrong, and the countless failures of the ToE.  Maybe you'll claim birds are dinosaurs next, and I guess you've been too busy trying to back up your hypotheses to listen to what I've been saying.

History has been written down and confirmed by different people so that is the proof.  If you do not believe that, then provide the evidence that history is wrong.  Surely, there are parts where history has been biased, but it has been corrected.  What are you going to claim from this?  That Biblicists believed in a flat earth lol?

I think you are referring to species based on natural selection.  That is part of what the Bible states.  Natural selection is considered to be the survival of the fittest and is often confused by atheists and evolutionists as that which is evolution.  It is not proof for evolution and against creationism.  Natural selection is quite a reasonable and “God-given” process whereby we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment.  Genes that are pre-existent are those genes that have always been there but certain environmental factors behave as a selection pressure that weeds out other genetic traits that are unsuitable.  Hence, those that carry unsuitable genotypes are eventually removed from the gene pool.  God had the wonderful ability to foresee the need for a process that would ensure the continuing survival of life on earth which He continues to care (Psalm 24:1; Job 12:7-9).

I keep answering your doubts over and over.  It's catastrophism vs uniformitarianism.  The layering of coal is just in certain parts of the earth.  It shows that layering or fossils or even coal happens where the conditions brought it to be.  In this case the global flood.  The flood uprooted the entire pre-flood biosphere and buried it with huge quantities of sand and mud.  The geologists today won't accept the flood, so they claim the coal layers were formed slowly over millions of years.  For these brown coal deposits, these scientists claim the vegetation accumulated as peat in a swamp during ideal climatic and geologic conditions.  They say the swamps formed on floodplains near the coast, which were slowly sinking and eventually inundated by the ocean.  However, the evidence indicates that these brown coal deposits did not accumulate in a peat bog or a swamp.   There is no sign of soil under the coal, as there would be if the vegetation grew and accumulated in a swamp.  Instead, the coal rests on a thick layer of clay and there is a ‘knife edge’ contact between the clay and the coal.  This kaolin clay is so pure that it could be used for high-class pottery.  Furthermore, there are no roots penetrating the clay. 

Again, the layers do not show time but location.  Already you've forgotten what I stated before.

And I think I did answer your radiocarbon post.  You claim the items are over 50,000 years old but how do you explain being able to date them?  All of the carbon would have been spent.  More scientists are radiocarbon dating dinosaur fossils and items which are supposed to be millions of years old.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this here, but there are 75 theses of creation science against evolution.

Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
There is life on Earth now.
At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
“Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
Growth and reproduction require cell division.
Cell division is a complex process.
There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, _etc._).
No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, _etc._) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
“We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.


----------



## james bond

I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up.  Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.  Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it.  The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit.  It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world.  It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here.  Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet.  An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.  There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible.  There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture.  These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today.  They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all.  These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up.  Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.  Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it.  The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit.  It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world.  It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here.  Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet.  An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.
> 
> The more things change, the more things stay the same.  There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible.  There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture.  These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today.  They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all.  These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).


Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.


----------



## Militants

Tor is the Nazi God when Swedish God does not exist.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up.  Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.  Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it.  The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit.  It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world.  It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here.  Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet.  An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.
> 
> The more things change, the more things stay the same.  There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible.  There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture.  These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today.  They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all.  These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).
> 
> 
> 
> Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.
Click to expand...


Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.

And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions.  I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new.  While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well.  It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest.  Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory.  As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong.  The atheists are usually wrong, too.  What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works.  It actually should be the other way around.  Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible.  The Bible can't change.  It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you.  This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind.  It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today.  He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reading your post is entertaining ...
> 
> the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question, BreezeWood.  Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe.  However, God wanted to keep some things secret.  The Bible says that we will never know.  This is another evidence for the existence of God.  However, people will try to find the answer.  The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.
> 
> This includes the age of the earth, too.  We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ho hum.  More atheist science bias from its wrong conclusions.  See my diamonds statements above.  Also, dinosaur fossils have been dated to a young earth.
Click to expand...

He was experiencing cognitive dissonance


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> - or those who put oral traditions ... above those of the Scripture.




and you believe one would survive the test of time over the other any differently, you indeed are a sad case.

the Almighty gave us our Spirit, not a written document than perhaps the one destroyed by the scripturalists, James Bond.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up.  Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.  Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it.  The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit.  It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world.  It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here.  Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet.  An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.
> 
> The more things change, the more things stay the same.  There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible.  There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture.  These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today.  They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all.  These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).
> 
> 
> 
> Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.
> 
> And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions.  I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new.  While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well.  It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest.  Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory.  As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong.  The atheists are usually wrong, too.  What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works.  It actually should be the other way around.  Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible.  The Bible can't change.  It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you.  This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind.  It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today.  He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up.  Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.  Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it.  The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit.  It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world.  It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here.  Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet.  An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.
> 
> The more things change, the more things stay the same.  There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible.  There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture.  These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today.  They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all.  These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).
> 
> 
> 
> Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.
> 
> And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions.  I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new.  While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well.  It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest.  Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory.  As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong.  The atheists are usually wrong, too.  What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works.  It actually should be the other way around.  Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible.  The Bible can't change.  It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you.  This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind.  It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today.  He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.
Click to expand...


I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> - or those who put oral traditions ... above those of the Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you believe one would survive the test of time over the other any differently, you indeed are a sad case.
> 
> the Almighty gave us our Spirit, not a written document than perhaps the one destroyed by the scripturalists, James Bond.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.  He wanted us to be happy.  In it, He shows us the way.  If I can get one thing to change people's minds on, it would be this.

So, why am I the sad case when atheists are the ones who are usually wrong?  One trend that is disturbing is more adults have some type of allergy.

This is just my opinion, but I think since atheists are an easily swayed group, they will be the ones who will suffer from addictive sources such as drugs, caffeine, alcohol, porn and so on.  Is fast food addictive?  The new generations may be hit like no other.  Their longevity will become shorter as adults will die earlier instead of later.  The first thing they do is deny it and claim they are a moral, upstanding group, but they won't be.  Else, they should be able to fulfill their evolutionary lives and be stronger, faster, smarter than the ancients.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reading your post is entertaining ...
> 
> the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question, BreezeWood.  Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe.  However, God wanted to keep some things secret.  The Bible says that we will never know.  This is another evidence for the existence of God.  However, people will try to find the answer.  The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.
> 
> This includes the age of the earth, too.  We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radiocarbon dating can't proof a young or old earth since it's usually only acurate to, on the outside 50000 years. And your wording makes me think the radiocarbon dating of diamonds gave you an age wich was older then 6000 years so provide the link to what your reffering to please. And btw this post makes you look either stupid or dishonest. If you accept radiocarbon dating you exept a world wich is at least 20000 years old. That's the minimum age that radiocarbon dating is accurate.Carbon Dating Gets a Reset this article pushes it even farther. So either you have no idea what radiocarbon dating does, or in my opinion more likely, deliberatly tried to apply it selectivly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ho hum.  More atheist science bias from its wrong conclusions.  See my diamonds statements above.  Also, dinosaur fossils have been dated to a young earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was experiencing cognitive dissonance
Click to expand...


You fergit a vid sealybob.  Yer slippin' me bucko.

The radiocarbon dating of diamonds found deep in the earth were claimed to be millions of years old by evolutionists.  What was surprising was they were thought to be very old, but it still had traces of carbon-14 in them.  Thus, the creationists measured the carbon-14 to that of something 90,000 years old.  These diamonds should have had all their carbon-14 decayed.  Evolutionists claimed groundwater contamination provided the carbon-14.  This would show different rates of contamination because the diamonds came from different depths, but the dating of the diamonds were fairly uniform.  Secular researchers also checked the findings with their own diamond samples which are impervious to most forms of contamination and found the same uniform results.  Diamonds are a girl's and creationist's best friend.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.











this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary.

_*
... that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
*_
the biblicist is only interested in their own self interest and have plagiarized their document to do so.


you speak of atheism as though you are not one and are the better for it where in fact your own self deception far exceeds anything you proclaim as a fault for their honest opinion.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up.  Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.  Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it.  The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit.  It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world.  It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here.  Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet.  An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.
> 
> The more things change, the more things stay the same.  There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible.  There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture.  These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today.  They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all.  These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).
> 
> 
> 
> Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.
> 
> And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions.  I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new.  While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well.  It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest.  Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory.  As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong.  The atheists are usually wrong, too.  What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works.  It actually should be the other way around.  Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible.  The Bible can't change.  It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you.  This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind.  It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today.  He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.
Click to expand...

So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture 


look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it. 
As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]

Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.

The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]

The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."

Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up.  Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.  Most here talk about it, but have no idea what is in it.  The Bible is excellent in providing nourishment for your heart, mind, body, and spirit.  It is still the good book and helps one to cleanse all the toxins that are out there in today's world.  It's message is one, so it holds the answers to many of the questions that we have.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible and not the stuff some have been talking about here.  Today, it is easier to read as the questions one has can be answered from the internet.  An example of one site is gotquestions.org to help read the Bible.
> 
> The more things change, the more things stay the same.  There are still the Truthseekers who are open-minded and find what is true and right and incorporate it into their lives with the help of the Bible.  There are still the Sadducees and the Pharisees who put their politics before religion or those who put oral traditions or self-serving gains above those of the Scripture.  These are the people who are ruled by political gains or those who seek to put that which is popular and self-serving, against the word of Christ, into the world today.  They will say their science is the truth and will claim to put science above all.  These are the ones who bring you what we have been discussing and more.  For out of the heart come evil thoughts--murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander (Matthew 15:19).
> 
> 
> 
> Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.
> 
> And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions.  I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new.  While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well.  It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest.  Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory.  As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong.  The atheists are usually wrong, too.  What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works.  It actually should be the other way around.  Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible.  The Bible can't change.  It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you.  This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind.  It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today.  He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
Click to expand...


Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.

Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?

I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.

Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.

So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?

So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.

As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.



I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary.
> 
> _*
> ... that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> *_
> the biblicist is only interested in their own self interest and have plagiarized their document to do so.
> 
> 
> you speak of atheism as though you are not one and are the better for it where in fact your own self deception far exceeds anything you proclaim as a fault for their honest opinion.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You'll have to explain further because I am not sure what you are claiming scripturalists (first time I heard that term) or I did.


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.
> 
> And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions.  I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new.  While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well.  It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest.  Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory.  As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong.  The atheists are usually wrong, too.  What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works.  It actually should be the other way around.  Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible.  The Bible can't change.  It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you.  This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind.  It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today.  He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
Click to expand...

We already are traveling into the future, it's called Time, and never stops propelling us forward into the future.


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> The radiocarbon dating of diamonds found deep in the earth were claimed to be millions of years old by evolutionists.  What was surprising was they were thought to be very old, but it still had traces of carbon-14 in them.  Thus, the creationists measured the carbon-14 to that of something 90,000 years old.  These diamonds should have had all their carbon-14 decayed.  Evolutionists claimed groundwater contamination provided the carbon-14.  This would show different rates of contamination because the diamonds came from different depths, but the dating of the diamonds were fairly uniform.  Secular researchers also checked the findings with their own diamond samples which are impervious to most forms of contamination and found the same uniform results.  Diamonds are a girl's and creationist's best friend.


Is that the best you have for proving the story of creation? Personally, if you could show me a logical way how Noah got marsupials from Australia and then back and, I'd believe anything at all.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well keep on holding to your truth if it makes you happier. If it means denying 150 years of scientific discovery in order for you to keep hold of your bibletexts it's none of my bussinuis. Just don't try to sell it as science. Science depends on observing the universe as it is, not as you want it to be. In the course of these posts I've seen what I consider somebody trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, but I do have to say I appreciate the willingness to at least have the conversation. I wish you well James and I think we will probably run in to eachother again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.
> 
> And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions.  I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new.  While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well.  It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest.  Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory.  As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong.  The atheists are usually wrong, too.  What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works.  It actually should be the other way around.  Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible.  The Bible can't change.  It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you.  This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind.  It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today.  He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
Click to expand...

-Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
-I'll put 2 questions up for you.
*Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
- Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
- You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
- Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary.
> 
> _*
> ... that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> *_
> the biblicist is only interested in their own self interest and have plagiarized their document to do so.
> 
> 
> you speak of atheism as though you are not one and are the better for it where in fact your own self deception far exceeds anything you proclaim as a fault for their honest opinion.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to explain further because I am not sure what you are claiming scripturalists (first time I heard that term) or I did.
Click to expand...



_*bond: You'll have to explain further because I am not sure what you are claiming scripturalists (first time I heard that term) or I did.*_

that's because you are unwilling to justify your statements from one fallacy to the next by answering the posts.





james bond said:


> or those who put oral traditions ... above those of the Scripture.





BreezeWood said:


> - and you believe one would survive the test of time over the other any differently, you indeed are a sad case.



did you answer the question bond ? - the implication your written scriptures are more valid than oral tradition over time - where time does not shed well the validity of "your" written scriptures - 6000 year old universe.





james bond said:


> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.











BreezeWood said:


> this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary - (* Hint: to validate what is otherwise written).



there is no written document from the Almighty, bond by their own etching it was destroyed. there is only an oral tradition, whether by writing or verbal and because of the heresy without condemnation the written is textually inaccurate from the time of moses foreword ... scripturalist and accordingly suspect throughout.

- only the oral tradition remains as the true path to the Everlasting.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary.
> 
> _*
> ... that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> *_
> the biblicist is only interested in their own self interest and have plagiarized their document to do so.
> 
> 
> you speak of atheism as though you are not one and are the better for it where in fact your own self deception far exceeds anything you proclaim as a fault for their honest opinion.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to explain further because I am not sure what you are claiming scripturalists (first time I heard that term) or I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*bond: You'll have to explain further because I am not sure what you are claiming scripturalists (first time I heard that term) or I did.*_
> 
> that's because you are unwilling to justify your statements from one fallacy to the next by answering the posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> or those who put oral traditions ... above those of the Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> - and you believe one would survive the test of time over the other any differently, you indeed are a sad case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you answer the question bond ? - the implication your written scriptures are more valid than oral tradition over time - where time does not shed well the validity of "your" written scriptures - 6000 year old universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary - (* Hint: to validate what is otherwise written).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is no written document from the Almighty, bond by their own etching it was destroyed. there is only an oral tradition, whether by writing or verbal and because of the heresy without condemnation the written is textually inaccurate from the time of moses foreword ... scripturalist and accordingly suspect throughout.
> 
> - only the oral tradition remains as the true path to the Everlasting.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Did you get this from Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code?  "Dan Brown's fictional book _The Da Vinci Code_ has his storyline “expert” say the following about the Bible: “The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven. . . . The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.” Brown’s charge does indeed belong in a work of fiction because the assertion is simply not true."

AFAIK, the originals, called "autographs" are not in the possession of any person or group.  They may have been lost or destroyed during the exile of the Jews, but the works have been copied for other use.  Thus, the content was preserved and handed down for later generations.

Is the original Bible still in existence?


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the truth helps the truthseekers here in this life and the next.
> 
> And it appears to no one's surprise that you did not learn anything from our discussions.  I looked up some of your claims about astronomy and learned something new.  While no one here is denying actual scientific discovery, since the believers are into science, as well.  It's not just the non-believers as you appear to suggest.  Where we draw the line is at evolution since it is a wrong and misleading theory.  As I pointed out, evo science has been wrong.  The atheists are usually wrong, too.  What's laughable is the non-believers try to point this out to believers about how science works.  It actually should be the other way around.  Theories in science can be wrong and end up as pseudoscience while science ends up backing the Bible.  The Bible can't change.  It's not the believers who try to put a round peg in the square hole, but people like you.  This is more of atheists' stubbornness and adhering to false science instead of keep an open mind.  It's the birds are dinosaurs smug mentality that exists today.  He who laughs last laughs best, so we shall see when all is said and done.
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
Click to expand...


Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.

Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all know that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?


I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
Click to expand...

Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
*How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out before.You have to do only 1 thing to prove evolution wrong.Find me a fossil that goes against the chronology. Finds dinosaurs and ppl in the same strata.Or a dinosaur in the precambrian Or about a dozen other variations on the theme.It is my best argument for macroevolution.If you deny microevolution there is truly no hope. Since proven both in the la be and out. I do want to say 1 thing about piltdown man. It took science 40 years to find out the hoax .But science did find it and what's more it was taken out and no scientist uses or teaches piltdown man as truth anymore.There is litteraly no piece of research not a single article that conceivably helps the Creationist cause that is ever truly abondened.Every theory that comes with Creationism is rehashed over and over again no matter how thoroughly it gets refuted.The lack of selfcorrecting mechanism is one of the main things that makes bit faith and not science.I urge you to read the supreme court ruling on why creationism is not science and then try to deny it.I doubt you'll be succesfull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all know that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
Click to expand...

" historical and physical evidence" Using evidence instead of proof doesn't change anything. What historical proof, the dragon MYTH? What physical evidence?? You mean a picture like this that creationist call an apatosaur.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary.
> 
> _*
> ... that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> *_
> the biblicist is only interested in their own self interest and have plagiarized their document to do so.
> 
> 
> you speak of atheism as though you are not one and are the better for it where in fact your own self deception far exceeds anything you proclaim as a fault for their honest opinion.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to explain further because I am not sure what you are claiming scripturalists (first time I heard that term) or I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*bond: You'll have to explain further because I am not sure what you are claiming scripturalists (first time I heard that term) or I did.*_
> 
> that's because you are unwilling to justify your statements from one fallacy to the next by answering the posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> or those who put oral traditions ... above those of the Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> - and you believe one would survive the test of time over the other any differently, you indeed are a sad case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you answer the question bond ? - the implication your written scriptures are more valid than oral tradition over time - where time does not shed well the validity of "your" written scriptures - 6000 year old universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary - (* Hint: to validate what is otherwise written).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is no written document from the Almighty, bond by their own etching it was destroyed. there is only an oral tradition, whether by writing or verbal and because of the heresy without condemnation the written is textually inaccurate from the time of moses foreword ... scripturalist and accordingly suspect throughout.
> 
> - only the oral tradition remains as the true path to the Everlasting.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get this from Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code?  "Dan Brown's fictional book _The Da Vinci Code_ has his storyline “expert” say the following about the Bible: “The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven. . . . The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.” Brown’s charge does indeed belong in a work of fiction because the assertion is simply not true."
> 
> AFAIK, the originals, called "autographs" are not in the possession of any person or group.  They may have been lost or destroyed during the exile of the Jews, but the works have been copied for other use.  Thus, the content was preserved and handed down for later generations.
> 
> Is the original Bible still in existence?
Click to expand...

.




the post was about what is written in the book not just its authenticity, the implication of moses who destroyed stone etchings carved by the Almighty as the true and only text form the deity themselves ... your response must have someone else in mind or just does not make any sense.

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.
> 
> 
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
Click to expand...


Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.

And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.

At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.

In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.

To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- http://christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary.
> 
> _*
> ... that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> *_
> the biblicist is only interested in their own self interest and have plagiarized their document to do so.
> 
> 
> you speak of atheism as though you are not one and are the better for it where in fact your own self deception far exceeds anything you proclaim as a fault for their honest opinion.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll have to explain further because I am not sure what you are claiming scripturalists (first time I heard that term) or I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*bond: You'll have to explain further because I am not sure what you are claiming scripturalists (first time I heard that term) or I did.*_
> 
> that's because you are unwilling to justify your statements from one fallacy to the next by answering the posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> or those who put oral traditions ... above those of the Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> - and you believe one would survive the test of time over the other any differently, you indeed are a sad case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you answer the question bond ? - the implication your written scriptures are more valid than oral tradition over time - where time does not shed well the validity of "your" written scriptures - 6000 year old universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Almighty gave us our Spirit and a written document that helps us enjoy the fruits of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the etching in stone from the Almighty you destroyed, scripturalist - by proxy without your condemnation for the heretic moses that is necessary - (* Hint: to validate what is otherwise written).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is no written document from the Almighty, bond by their own etching it was destroyed. there is only an oral tradition, whether by writing or verbal and because of the heresy without condemnation the written is textually inaccurate from the time of moses foreword ... scripturalist and accordingly suspect throughout.
> 
> - only the oral tradition remains as the true path to the Everlasting.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get this from Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code?  "Dan Brown's fictional book _The Da Vinci Code_ has his storyline “expert” say the following about the Bible: “The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven. . . . The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.” Brown’s charge does indeed belong in a work of fiction because the assertion is simply not true."
> 
> AFAIK, the originals, called "autographs" are not in the possession of any person or group.  They may have been lost or destroyed during the exile of the Jews, but the works have been copied for other use.  Thus, the content was preserved and handed down for later generations.
> 
> Is the original Bible still in existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the post was about what is written in the book not just its authenticity, the implication of moses who destroyed stone etchings carved by the Almighty as the true and only text form the deity themselves ... your response must have someone else in mind or just does not make any sense.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


All I can say is you do not explain enough for me to understand you, and will let it go at that.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I explained this already, but fossilization is difficult to come by.  There appear to be many fossils, and the archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and others have done a fine job in digging them out.  Overall, it is still not an easy thing to come across although there could be a big find.  Thus, we have not come across the conclusive evidence yet.  There is plenty of other evidence that tells of dinosaurs and humans living together -- Evidence of Dinosaurs with Men | Genesis Park ,
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] , or Dinosaurs in History .  Unfortunately, the evidence is forbidden because it would destroy evolution and people would lose their jobs.  So, there is your one thing.  Yet, your macroevo evidence is weak.  Natural selection is just as much as part of creation science and creationists have developed baraminology to explain the different species and how they can mingle.  Some of things to prove evolution has been pointed out in the 75 theses.  Give me an example of abiogenesis.  Humans can't even create a blade of grass without a pre-existing living organism.  I've already explained the chicken and the egg and science backs it up.  The Bible is truly ahead of its time as we have not been able to prove it all, but eventually we will.  Despite this happening, it is foretold that other powers that be will disallow it and so comes the end of the world.  Some people think it is coming in our lifetime, but I have no idea.
> 
> 
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all know that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " historical and physical evidence" Using evidence instead of proof doesn't change anything. What historical proof, the dragon MYTH? What physical evidence?? You mean a picture like this that creationist call an apatosaur.
Click to expand...


I can see the *apatosaurus* quite clearly, if that's what you meant.  How did Native Americans draw such animals?






Would you have a different reaction if they drew an alien lol?


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
Click to expand...

The Origin of Species: The Beak of the Finch | HHMI's BioInteractive
This is field research of 2 bioligist over 40 years on finches. I urge you to watch the entire thing, but since I don't believe you will watch, I'll give some highlights. It records both a drought and a uncommenly wet period. Both of those have a significant effect on the population. Proving evolutionary changes. It also explains how they experimentally proved that altough there are about a dozen different species of finches they don't interbreed. Experiments have also been done under labconditions with fruitflies and I have already pointed out the whole bacteriel thing. So when you say evolution is faith without any proof you are plainly wrong.
How do we know that evolution is really happening? . Another link to summaries. It doesn't just reiterate (better then I can) the fossil records. But it also show experimentally both in the lab and in the field different experiments that have been done confirming evolution. *You know the thing you say no experiments confirm.*Now about baraminology. They say that there are no genetic simularities between kinds. That's a whopper of a lie.Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals . This link provides a blip of genetic relationships between the different species. It has sources. It also illustrates something else, genetics act as a time capsule recording how closely in history the different species are related. *Try to explain that in another way?*


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
Click to expand...

"I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how. The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth. Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30." Check page 126 of this threat guess where you got that from. You don't even want to acknowledge that science can meassure distance to distant stars and your trying to claim I don't understand special relativity. As to life on other planets. This boils down to how we look at the world. If you believe God created us in it's image. Life on other planets would pose a problem, because it would proof earth for starters isn't unique. I start from the standpoint earth isn't unique. Logically then I start from the position that life is possible, because it is here on earth. Logically if I identify liquid water as the main catalyst and we find liquid water exist(ed) on at least 2 other places in our solar system. And I furthermore can establish that exoplanets are commmon in the universe. And a rough estimate of stars in the universe is 100 octillion stars. That's 1 with 29 zero's. Statisticly that would mean that life is not only possible but likely somewhere.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your first argument is the dragon myth. Sorry to tell you, but you cant proof 1 myth by citing another myth. At best you can call it circumtential. Your second part was that stegosaur picture View attachment 77803
> look closely you see a large head and horns. Weirdest stegsaurus I've ever seen. So call that wishfull thinking.
> Then you said it's a conspiracy. Like I pointed out before. It would involve all paleontiligist litteraly thousands of ppl keeping a secret. And remember a scientist who would find proof of your claims his career would be made so weird argument. You also said we simply haven't found enough fossils yet. We have found litteraly hundreds of thousands of fossils. None of them show an intermingling of species like your suggesting. Homonids and large mamals in some strata, dinosaurs in other, only marine life in others. It's universal, predictable and always true. The truth is none of your arguments against macroevolution do anything to discredit it.
> As to your abiogenesis argument. Couple of things. I already conceded several times that the start of life is an hypothesis not a theory yet. Who knows some higher intelligence put the first simple cell organisms on earth. But what happened after those first simple cell organisms where put here is a theory which is massivly supported. Btw when you say I believe in survival of the fittest but not in evolution, your saying I believe in rain but not that it's wet. One is the mecanism for the other. Baraminoigy is not a science
> Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[10]
> 
> Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[11] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[12] that the possibility of hybrids _definitely_ means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean _different_ baramins.
> 
> The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[13]
> 
> The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
> Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."
> 
> Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[14] Where various hominids go is another story.[15]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all know that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " historical and physical evidence" Using evidence instead of proof doesn't change anything. What historical proof, the dragon MYTH? What physical evidence?? You mean a picture like this that creationist call an apatosaur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see the *apatosaurus* quite clearly, if that's what you meant.  How did Native Americans draw such animals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a different reaction if they drew an alien lol?
Click to expand...

You can basicly draw anything if you want to . I made a campfire and a hilly terrain. It's kind of like looking at clouds. You can make it mean watever you want it to mean.Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the "sauropod dinosaur" turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains.Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge      |     Science | Smithsonian


there you go


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> 
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all know that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " historical and physical evidence" Using evidence instead of proof doesn't change anything. What historical proof, the dragon MYTH? What physical evidence?? You mean a picture like this that creationist call an apatosaur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see the *apatosaurus* quite clearly, if that's what you meant.  How did Native Americans draw such animals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a different reaction if they drew an alien lol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can basicly draw anything if you want to . I made a campfire and a hilly terrain. It's kind of like looking at clouds. You can make it mean watever you want it to mean.Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the "sauropod dinosaur" turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains.Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge      |     Science | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> there you go
> View attachment 78212
Click to expand...


Yes, but this isn't the only drawing, historical or cultural artifact I provided from every continent and different time periods.  The evidence is overwhelming, but the atheists and secular scientists continue to lie or deny.







My little evolutionist joke is since they think birds are dinosaurs, we are living with dinosaurs today.  Ha ha.

We still have dinosaurs living today, as well.  I pointed out the coalacanth.  How about a plesiosaur?  Plenty of eyewitness and photographic evidence of these hidden baramins.


I noticed your link was from the Smithsonian.  The extinction of dinosaurs is quite wrong.  Hopefully, the Smithsonian will give more credence to creation scientists in the near future since it is run by the USG.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> 
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how. The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth. Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30." Check page 126 of this threat guess where you got that from. You don't even want to acknowledge that science can meassure distance to distant stars and your trying to claim I don't understand special relativity. As to life on other planets. This boils down to how we look at the world. If you believe God created us in it's image. Life on other planets would pose a problem, because it would proof earth for starters isn't unique. I start from the standpoint earth isn't unique. Logically then I start from the position that life is possible, because it is here on earth. Logically if I identify liquid water as the main catalyst and we find liquid water exist(ed) on at least 2 other places in our solar system. And I furthermore can establish that exoplanets are commmon in the universe. And a rough estimate of stars in the universe is 100 octillion stars. That's 1 with 29 zero's. Statisticly that would mean that life is not only possible but likely somewhere.
Click to expand...


Instead of guessing and being *wrong*, if you have a question why don't you just ask me?  I got time travel into the future from watching a youtube from a high schooler who won a science award last year on special relativity.


You fall into a logic trap if you claim vastness is evidence that we'll discover aliens.  Why can't God reside on one of those planets by the same line of thinking?  Ha ha.

Just admit it is all faith-based and has nothing to do with science.  So, the next time you read news stories of how secular scientists claim they'll find aliens, you'll know it is really a philosophy piece.  Much of their claims is philosophy.

Liquid water isn't a catalyst for life or else we would see it on other planets in our own solar system.  You even claimed water on Mars, so where is the life?  That has been explored quite a bit now, no?  I think NASA even made a video of a small fish popping out, but they quickly pulled it.

As for the distance, what I said was science isn't considering spacetime when they measure the distances.  You continue to fail at acknowledging that when special relativity was proven with the existence of gravitational waves.  It was one of the things I was excited about.  We still do not understand spacetime similar to 2D-beings able to explain the 3D-world.

Life on other planets does not pose a problem to the creation scientists nor I.  It is unlikely based on the fine-tuning theory which I talked about and posted a youtube, and not what you claim.  Wrong again, forkup.  Is that why your handle is forkup?  OTOH, I keep an open mind and try not make false assumptions or jump to conclusions.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> 
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wishful thinking.  It is an artistic representation and looks like a stegosaraus or similar dinosaur.  I'll go by your hundreds of thousands of fossils, but in those which ones show two dinosaurs living together and being buried together?  Not many I bet.  What I have to come up with is one where both man and dinosaur were buried together.  They can't just die together or had lived nearby.  They had to be buried together and put under pressure.  Moreover, the dinosaurs being buried together is evidence of a global flood.  Perhaps, the evidence has been found, but secular scientists hid the evidence so as to not destroy evolution?  That is possible.
> 
> Let's stop here and do a thought experiment.  Do you believe that we can travel into the future?  Do you believe that we can travel back to the past and possibly change history?
> 
> I say we can travel into the future and I have evidence to show how it can be done.  There is no evidence, but science fiction that we can travel into the past.
> 
> Or do you believe aliens exist?  Many atheist scientists think we'll discover aliens within the next 35 years because of their expensive telescopes and equipment.  Yet, they have no evidence that they exist.  Just large numbers of planets and stars and wishful thinking.  We have shown that life is fine-tuned in the universe and that life bearing environments are extremely rare.
> 
> So, I have made a hypothesis from hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and yet you do not believe me.  This isn't pie in the sky as the secular scientists such as Carl Sagan theorized.  Sagan even sent time capsules with two satellites into space so if intelligent aliens found them, they would learn about us and know we are here.  What a waste of money and how scientific was that lol?
> 
> So between the two worldviews, which group has committed more fraud.  It's the secular scientists.  Which group has been show to be more wrong.  Again, the secular scientists.
> 
> As with the Bible, your lack of knowledge of baramins is showing.  Baraminology has been developed so that it can be taught in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you evidence of dinosaurs and man living together.  They weren't called dinosaurs back then, but dragons.  Many representations of dragons exist all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Origin of Species: The Beak of the Finch | HHMI's BioInteractive
> This is field research of 2 bioligist over 40 years on finches. I urge you to watch the entire thing, but since I don't believe you will watch, I'll give some highlights. It records both a drought and a uncommenly wet period. Both of those have a significant effect on the population. Proving evolutionary changes. It also explains how they experimentally proved that altough there are about a dozen different species of finches they don't interbreed. Experiments have also been done under labconditions with fruitflies and I have already pointed out the whole bacteriel thing. So when you say evolution is faith without any proof you are plainly wrong.
> How do we know that evolution is really happening? . Another link to summaries. It doesn't just reiterate (better then I can) the fossil records. But it also show experimentally both in the lab and in the field different experiments that have been done confirming evolution. *You know the thing you say no experiments confirm.*Now about baraminology. They say that there are no genetic simularities between kinds. That's a whopper of a lie.Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals . This link provides a blip of genetic relationships between the different species. It has sources. It also illustrates something else, genetics act as a time capsule recording how closely in history the different species are related. *Try to explain that in another way?*
Click to expand...


The finch's beak shows micro changes which is part of speciation.  It does not show any macro changes.  Also, it took place is a short period of time.  Not thousands or even millions of years.  I do not think anyone is arguing speciation or natural selection.  That is part of baraminology.  Where is the experiment to show finches came from dinosaurs lol?  Or man from apes?

Many of Darwin's theories have been debunked.  He even debunked himself on occasion.  He wasn't the great scientist he is made out to be.  He's become an icon.  I would bet a cyber beer that religious Alfred Russel Wallace was a better biologist and scientist.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how. The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth. Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30." Check page 126 of this threat guess where you got that from. You don't even want to acknowledge that science can meassure distance to distant stars and your trying to claim I don't understand special relativity. As to life on other planets. This boils down to how we look at the world. If you believe God created us in it's image. Life on other planets would pose a problem, because it would proof earth for starters isn't unique. I start from the standpoint earth isn't unique. Logically then I start from the position that life is possible, because it is here on earth. Logically if I identify liquid water as the main catalyst and we find liquid water exist(ed) on at least 2 other places in our solar system. And I furthermore can establish that exoplanets are commmon in the universe. And a rough estimate of stars in the universe is 100 octillion stars. That's 1 with 29 zero's. Statisticly that would mean that life is not only possible but likely somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of guessing and being *wrong*, if you have a question why don't you just ask me?  I got time travel into the future from watching a youtube from a high schooler who won a science award last year on special relativity.
> 
> 
> You fall into a logic trap if you claim vastness is evidence that we'll discover aliens.  Why can't God reside on one of those planets by the same line of thinking?  Ha ha.
> 
> Just admit it is all faith-based and has nothing to do with science.  So, the next time you read news stories of how secular scientists claim they'll find aliens, you'll know it is really a philosophy piece.  Much of their claims is philosophy.
> 
> Liquid water isn't a catalyst for life or else we would see it on other planets in our own solar system.  You even claimed water on Mars, so where is the life?  That has been explored quite a bit now, no?  I think NASA even made a video of a small fish popping out, but they quickly pulled it.
> 
> As for the distance, what I said was science isn't considering spacetime when they measure the distances.  You continue to fail at acknowledging that when special relativity was proven with the existence of gravitational waves.  It was one of the things I was excited about.  We still do not understand spacetime similar to 2D-beings able to explain the 3D-world.
> 
> Life on other planets does not pose a problem to the creation scientists nor I.  It is unlikely based on the fine-tuning theory which I talked about and posted a youtube, and not what you claim.  Wrong again, forkup.  Is that why your handle is forkup?  OTOH, I keep an open mind and try not make false assumptions or jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Well if you didn't get it from me fine but i gave the exact same explanation you did. About 10 posts ago so don't try to say you are writing something so complex I don't understand. What you write is not complex nore is it factual. You tried here to deny the vastness of the universe by trying to put in doubt how scientist calculate distance in astronomy, so forgive me when I find you now trying to use astronomy like a field of knowledge for me leaves me highly skeptical. You also try to deny that supernovas take way longer then 6000 years to develop. You also are still trying to use spacetime as an explanation and are trying to say that science doesn't take spacetime into account. Since the concept of spacetime is something science is not only highly aware but was ultimatly the discoverer of I find that a dubious claim.  God being an alien is an intresting taught experiment and not even one I can completly rule out, I would call it a highly advanced alien then, but that's just semantics. It still won't change anything about evolution though. As to water not being the catalyst for life because you don't see it on other planets. Well again a dubious claim. We have searched 1 planet thouroughly for life.... Earth.Mars we have rovers on and if it has liquid water it's underground. The moon is barren. Like you pointed out Europa might have liquid water but if it does it's under several miles of ice. So how do you come to that conclusion?? We have seen on Earth that places wich have liquid water invariably has life, that's a fact.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all know that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " historical and physical evidence" Using evidence instead of proof doesn't change anything. What historical proof, the dragon MYTH? What physical evidence?? You mean a picture like this that creationist call an apatosaur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see the *apatosaurus* quite clearly, if that's what you meant.  How did Native Americans draw such animals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a different reaction if they drew an alien lol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can basicly draw anything if you want to . I made a campfire and a hilly terrain. It's kind of like looking at clouds. You can make it mean watever you want it to mean.Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the "sauropod dinosaur" turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains.Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge      |     Science | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> there you go
> View attachment 78212
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but this isn't the only drawing, historical or cultural artifact I provided from every continent and different time periods.  The evidence is overwhelming, but the atheists and secular scientists continue to lie or deny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My little evolutionist joke is since they think birds are dinosaurs, we are living with dinosaurs today.  Ha ha.
> 
> We still have dinosaurs living today, as well.  I pointed out the coalacanth.  How about a plesiosaur?  Plenty of eyewitness and photographic evidence of these hidden baramins.
> 
> 
> I noticed your link was from the Smithsonian.  The extinction of dinosaurs is quite wrong.  Hopefully, the Smithsonian will give more credence to creation scientists in the near future since it is run by the USG.
Click to expand...

Not a single artifact, myth, or squiggle you've shown I can't quite easily give an alternative explanation for. For instance you just showed me the monster of troy as proof of dinosaurs and man living togheter. Unless you are trying to tell me you believe in the Minotaur, Hydra or Medusa it falls a bit short as trying to claim it's proof of anything, but that Greek Mythology was highly inventive. Scientist have spend both time and money trying to find the Loch Ness monster or like you trying to call it a Pleisiosaur. They haven't found her ,the picture you've shown has been confirmed a hoax. So how is it proof? I can go on and on. 
You're little joke is right but it also destroys your attack on evolution because, if you accept it, it proves evolution, if I accept it,and I do it is completly consistent with accepted science.It is perfectly understandable that after a meteor strike, small agile creatures have a higher chance of survival, exactly the type of dinosaurs that would have evolved into birds.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> -Define proof. You use that word alot, what to you is proof. So far you have used "artistic representation", " It's a conspiracy", "myth". what of those things you consider proof?
> -I'll put 2 questions up for you.
> *Do you consider Radiocarbon dating accurate?
> Give me a clear set of parameters for classification of kinds using baraminology?* You say it's scientific so it has to have parameters.
> - Now to the rest. There are plenty of fossils beds, usually it used to be a pool of somekind where a flash flood hit. Since that ensures rapid burial. But you seem to not understand something. I'm making it way easier for you then show me humans and dinosaurs buried togheter. Al I'm asking of you is to show me any human buried in the strata under the KT boundarary, or a dinosaur buried in the layers before the permian extinction. You don't have to show me a human buried with a dinosaur just a human in those strata. I say they're buried chronologically. If you can break that chronoligy you will have proven your point. Just don't tell me, the reason it hasn't happened is a conspiracy. I've pointed out to you, that it would have to be a massive conspiracy and not only that. A paleontoligist who can break that chronligy would be famous so it's completly counterintuitive to keep it a secret.
> - You know dragons all fly now tell me. Flying dinosaurs looked way different then dragons. I have another hypothesis.It's save to assume large bones have been dug up before Owen did it in the 1800's . I put the question what would happen if a huge bone is dug up in the dark ages. A bone nobody can put on an indigenous animal. Without any reference I can picture any dark age monk put the spin of a mytholigical creature on that. See, dragon Myths and other mytholigical beasts explained without having to resort to dinosaurs and man lived togheter
> - Now your thaught experiment, I don't know what the point is but I'll answer.
> Yes I do believe in alien life. No I don't believe we will ever make contact. It's a matter of scale not rarity. We as a human race are at a certain lvl in our development, we can communicate using radiowaves, microwaves, lightwaves and probably a few more. The universe is vast and we've only started to transmit call it 80 years ago. So the outer limit is 40 lightyears, because the signal has to get back to us.So the aliens. First have to be intelligent, at the same technoligical lvl, willing to talk, and within a radius of 40 lightyears. In other words pretty much a longshot.
> In all time travel theories allowed by real science, there is no way a traveler can go back in time to before the time machine was built.
> I'm confident time travel into the future is possible, but we would need to develop some very advanced technology to do it. We could travel 10,000 years into the future and age only 1 year during that journey. However, such a trip would consume an extraordinary amount of energy. Time travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
> I stole the bit on time travel but that's the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Origin of Species: The Beak of the Finch | HHMI's BioInteractive
> This is field research of 2 bioligist over 40 years on finches. I urge you to watch the entire thing, but since I don't believe you will watch, I'll give some highlights. It records both a drought and a uncommenly wet period. Both of those have a significant effect on the population. Proving evolutionary changes. It also explains how they experimentally proved that altough there are about a dozen different species of finches they don't interbreed. Experiments have also been done under labconditions with fruitflies and I have already pointed out the whole bacteriel thing. So when you say evolution is faith without any proof you are plainly wrong.
> How do we know that evolution is really happening? . Another link to summaries. It doesn't just reiterate (better then I can) the fossil records. But it also show experimentally both in the lab and in the field different experiments that have been done confirming evolution. *You know the thing you say no experiments confirm.*Now about baraminology. They say that there are no genetic simularities between kinds. That's a whopper of a lie.Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals . This link provides a blip of genetic relationships between the different species. It has sources. It also illustrates something else, genetics act as a time capsule recording how closely in history the different species are related. *Try to explain that in another way?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The finch's beak shows micro changes which is part of speciation.  It does not show any macro changes.  Also, it took place is a short period of time.  Not thousands or even millions of years.  I do not think anyone is arguing speciation or natural selection.  That is part of baraminology.  Where is the experiment to show finches came from dinosaurs lol?  Or man from apes?
> 
> Many of Darwin's theories have been debunked.  He even debunked himself on occasion.  He wasn't the great scientist he is made out to be.  He's become an icon.  I would bet a cyber beer that religious Alfred Russel Wallace was a better biologist and scientist.
Click to expand...

What to you are macro changes? The finches on the Galapogos don't just constitute the one kind these researchers focused on. There are several kinds all different in size and diet. So these scientist found both a confermation that the enviremont had a severe impact on 1 species but it also clearly explains why from 1 population different subsecies develop. In time it's also quite easy to see how if the process continues completly different species will develop. Like I said baraminoligy flat out refuse to acknowledge that genetics clearly shows a percentage of relatedness.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I have proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I have the following photo that I took with my Brownie back in 1947:


----------



## BreezeWood

.





HEADLINER - dinosaurs and people have even been found living together on Mars and just in the last year ... photoimage proof.

.


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all know that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> 
> 
> " historical and physical evidence" Using evidence instead of proof doesn't change anything. What historical proof, the dragon MYTH? What physical evidence?? You mean a picture like this that creationist call an apatosaur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see the *apatosaurus* quite clearly, if that's what you meant.  How did Native Americans draw such animals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a different reaction if they drew an alien lol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can basicly draw anything if you want to . I made a campfire and a hilly terrain. It's kind of like looking at clouds. You can make it mean watever you want it to mean.Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the "sauropod dinosaur" turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains.Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge      |     Science | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> there you go
> View attachment 78212
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but this isn't the only drawing, historical or cultural artifact I provided from every continent and different time periods.  The evidence is overwhelming, but the atheists and secular scientists continue to lie or deny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My little evolutionist joke is since they think birds are dinosaurs, we are living with dinosaurs today.  Ha ha.
> 
> We still have dinosaurs living today, as well.  I pointed out the coalacanth.  How about a plesiosaur?  Plenty of eyewitness and photographic evidence of these hidden baramins.
> 
> 
> I noticed your link was from the Smithsonian.  The extinction of dinosaurs is quite wrong.  Hopefully, the Smithsonian will give more credence to creation scientists in the near future since it is run by the USG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a single artifact, myth, or squiggle you've shown I can't quite easily give an alternative explanation for. For instance you just showed me the monster of troy as proof of dinosaurs and man living togheter. Unless you are trying to tell me you believe in the Minotaur, Hydra or Medusa it falls a bit short as trying to claim it's proof of anything, but that Greek Mythology was highly inventive. Scientist have spend both time and money trying to find the Loch Ness monster or like you trying to call it a Pleisiosaur. They haven't found her ,the picture you've shown has been confirmed a hoax. So how is it proof? I can go on and on.
> You're little joke is right but it also destroys your attack on evolution because, if you accept it, it proves evolution, if I accept it,and I do it is completly consistent with accepted science.It is perfectly understandable that after a meteor strike, small agile creatures have a higher chance of survival, exactly the type of dinosaurs that would have evolved into birds.
Click to expand...

Why is it that every video or picture of bigfoot, nessie and apperently the lake champlain monster are blurry??


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how. The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth. Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30." Check page 126 of this threat guess where you got that from. You don't even want to acknowledge that science can meassure distance to distant stars and your trying to claim I don't understand special relativity. As to life on other planets. This boils down to how we look at the world. If you believe God created us in it's image. Life on other planets would pose a problem, because it would proof earth for starters isn't unique. I start from the standpoint earth isn't unique. Logically then I start from the position that life is possible, because it is here on earth. Logically if I identify liquid water as the main catalyst and we find liquid water exist(ed) on at least 2 other places in our solar system. And I furthermore can establish that exoplanets are commmon in the universe. And a rough estimate of stars in the universe is 100 octillion stars. That's 1 with 29 zero's. Statisticly that would mean that life is not only possible but likely somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of guessing and being *wrong*, if you have a question why don't you just ask me?  I got time travel into the future from watching a youtube from a high schooler who won a science award last year on special relativity.
> 
> 
> You fall into a logic trap if you claim vastness is evidence that we'll discover aliens.  Why can't God reside on one of those planets by the same line of thinking?  Ha ha.
> 
> Just admit it is all faith-based and has nothing to do with science.  So, the next time you read news stories of how secular scientists claim they'll find aliens, you'll know it is really a philosophy piece.  Much of their claims is philosophy.
> 
> Liquid water isn't a catalyst for life or else we would see it on other planets in our own solar system.  You even claimed water on Mars, so where is the life?  That has been explored quite a bit now, no?  I think NASA even made a video of a small fish popping out, but they quickly pulled it.
> 
> As for the distance, what I said was science isn't considering spacetime when they measure the distances.  You continue to fail at acknowledging that when special relativity was proven with the existence of gravitational waves.  It was one of the things I was excited about.  We still do not understand spacetime similar to 2D-beings able to explain the 3D-world.
> 
> Life on other planets does not pose a problem to the creation scientists nor I.  It is unlikely based on the fine-tuning theory which I talked about and posted a youtube, and not what you claim.  Wrong again, forkup.  Is that why your handle is forkup?  OTOH, I keep an open mind and try not make false assumptions or jump to conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you didn't get it from me fine but i gave the exact same explanation you did. About 10 posts ago so don't try to say you are writing something so complex I don't understand. What you write is not complex nore is it factual. You tried here to deny the vastness of the universe by trying to put in doubt how scientist calculate distance in astronomy, so forgive me when I find you now trying to use astronomy like a field of knowledge for me leaves me highly skeptical. You also try to deny that supernovas take way longer then 6000 years to develop. You also are still trying to use spacetime as an explanation and are trying to say that science doesn't take spacetime into account. Since the concept of spacetime is something science is not only highly aware but was ultimatly the discoverer of I find that a dubious claim.  God being an alien is an intresting taught experiment and not even one I can completly rule out, I would call it a highly advanced alien then, but that's just semantics. It still won't change anything about evolution though. As to water not being the catalyst for life because you don't see it on other planets. Well again a dubious claim. We have searched 1 planet thouroughly for life.... Earth.Mars we have rovers on and if it has liquid water it's underground. The moon is barren. Like you pointed out Europa might have liquid water but if it does it's under several miles of ice. So how do you come to that conclusion?? We have seen on Earth that places wich have liquid water invariably has life, that's a fact.
Click to expand...




BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HEADLINER - dinosaurs and people have even been found living together on Mars and just in the last year ... photoimage proof.
> 
> .



Lol.  You're nutty, but fun.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> " historical and physical evidence" Using evidence instead of proof doesn't change anything. What historical proof, the dragon MYTH? What physical evidence?? You mean a picture like this that creationist call an apatosaur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see the *apatosaurus* quite clearly, if that's what you meant.  How did Native Americans draw such animals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a different reaction if they drew an alien lol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can basicly draw anything if you want to . I made a campfire and a hilly terrain. It's kind of like looking at clouds. You can make it mean watever you want it to mean.Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the "sauropod dinosaur" turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains.Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge      |     Science | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> there you go
> View attachment 78212
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but this isn't the only drawing, historical or cultural artifact I provided from every continent and different time periods.  The evidence is overwhelming, but the atheists and secular scientists continue to lie or deny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My little evolutionist joke is since they think birds are dinosaurs, we are living with dinosaurs today.  Ha ha.
> 
> We still have dinosaurs living today, as well.  I pointed out the coalacanth.  How about a plesiosaur?  Plenty of eyewitness and photographic evidence of these hidden baramins.
> 
> 
> I noticed your link was from the Smithsonian.  The extinction of dinosaurs is quite wrong.  Hopefully, the Smithsonian will give more credence to creation scientists in the near future since it is run by the USG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a single artifact, myth, or squiggle you've shown I can't quite easily give an alternative explanation for. For instance you just showed me the monster of troy as proof of dinosaurs and man living togheter. Unless you are trying to tell me you believe in the Minotaur, Hydra or Medusa it falls a bit short as trying to claim it's proof of anything, but that Greek Mythology was highly inventive. Scientist have spend both time and money trying to find the Loch Ness monster or like you trying to call it a Pleisiosaur. They haven't found her ,the picture you've shown has been confirmed a hoax. So how is it proof? I can go on and on.
> You're little joke is right but it also destroys your attack on evolution because, if you accept it, it proves evolution, if I accept it,and I do it is completly consistent with accepted science.It is perfectly understandable that after a meteor strike, small agile creatures have a higher chance of survival, exactly the type of dinosaurs that would have evolved into birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that every video or picture of bigfoot, nessie and apperently the lake champlain monster are blurry??
Click to expand...


Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .


----------



## james bond

Vandalshandle said:


> I have proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I have the following photo that I took with my Brownie back in 1947:



Most would say it was a staged photo for a musical.  However, this one of Civil War soldiers with a creature that looks like a pteranodon isn't.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last points first.  Why do you believe in alien life?  There is no evidence for it except in science fiction and opinions from secular scientists with today's fancy and expensive equipment to look into the universe.  Yet, I'll keep an open mind even though I think they do not exist.  It's popular to think they do.  You probably believe that human civilizations can exist on Mars, too.  The evidence shows that Mars in a terribly inhospitable planet and life can't possibly exist there.
> 
> Furthermore, this belief is just based solely on "faith" isn't it.  Isn't this the same attitude you hold against me when I say dinosaurs and humans coexisted?  Yet, I have provided much historical and physical evidence that they did and yet you consider it myth and you do not believe me.  (In baraminology, they have a hidden class for creatures that are cryptids.  Today, some dinosaurs are thought to still exist.  People look for them like the zoologists and other scientists looked for new animals and plants in the not too distant past, i.e. they talked with people and set out to search for it.)  The coalacanth fish was thought to be the link between man evolving from the sea and 100-million years old.  Yet, we all k now that they exist today.  Another blow to evolution.  You believe based on nothing but hypotheses of secular scientists.  Just because the universe is vast, even though the creation scientists told you about fine tuning (which is accepted by some secular scientists).  SETI is scientific, but it has not been very productive in gathering the evidence for other intelligent life.  Isn't this evidence for fine tuning and what the creation scientists are saying?
> 
> 
> I'll try to answer your earlier points later today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Origin of Species: The Beak of the Finch | HHMI's BioInteractive
> This is field research of 2 bioligist over 40 years on finches. I urge you to watch the entire thing, but since I don't believe you will watch, I'll give some highlights. It records both a drought and a uncommenly wet period. Both of those have a significant effect on the population. Proving evolutionary changes. It also explains how they experimentally proved that altough there are about a dozen different species of finches they don't interbreed. Experiments have also been done under labconditions with fruitflies and I have already pointed out the whole bacteriel thing. So when you say evolution is faith without any proof you are plainly wrong.
> How do we know that evolution is really happening? . Another link to summaries. It doesn't just reiterate (better then I can) the fossil records. But it also show experimentally both in the lab and in the field different experiments that have been done confirming evolution. *You know the thing you say no experiments confirm.*Now about baraminology. They say that there are no genetic simularities between kinds. That's a whopper of a lie.Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals . This link provides a blip of genetic relationships between the different species. It has sources. It also illustrates something else, genetics act as a time capsule recording how closely in history the different species are related. *Try to explain that in another way?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The finch's beak shows micro changes which is part of speciation.  It does not show any macro changes.  Also, it took place is a short period of time.  Not thousands or even millions of years.  I do not think anyone is arguing speciation or natural selection.  That is part of baraminology.  Where is the experiment to show finches came from dinosaurs lol?  Or man from apes?
> 
> Many of Darwin's theories have been debunked.  He even debunked himself on occasion.  He wasn't the great scientist he is made out to be.  He's become an icon.  I would bet a cyber beer that religious Alfred Russel Wallace was a better biologist and scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What to you are macro changes? The finches on the Galapogos don't just constitute the one kind these researchers focused on. There are several kinds all different in size and diet. So these scientist found both a confermation that the enviremont had a severe impact on 1 species but it also clearly explains why from 1 population different subsecies develop. In time it's also quite easy to see how if the process continues completly different species will develop. Like I said baraminoligy flat out refuse to acknowledge that genetics clearly shows a percentage of relatedness.
Click to expand...


Show me an experiment to show birds came from dinosaurs?  Or man from apes?  Or land animals from a sea creature?  Speciation or natural selection happen in a short period of time, so it is demonstrable according to baraminology.  The same should be true if we can get a man-like animal from a sea creature.  You do not need hundreds of thousands or millions of years.


----------



## james bond

The black lines are suppose to be water on Mars.






Or is it just shifting sands from the wind?


----------



## Vandalshandle

james bond said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I have the following photo that I took with my Brownie back in 1947:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most would say it was a staged photo for a musical.  However, this one of Civil War soldiers with a creature that looks like a pteranodon isn't.
Click to expand...


It is a little know fact that the dinosaurs are extinct because they fought on the wrong side in the Civil War.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see the *apatosaurus* quite clearly, if that's what you meant.  How did Native Americans draw such animals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a different reaction if they drew an alien lol?
> 
> 
> 
> You can basicly draw anything if you want to . I made a campfire and a hilly terrain. It's kind of like looking at clouds. You can make it mean watever you want it to mean.Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the "sauropod dinosaur" turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains.Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge      |     Science | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> there you go
> View attachment 78212
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but this isn't the only drawing, historical or cultural artifact I provided from every continent and different time periods.  The evidence is overwhelming, but the atheists and secular scientists continue to lie or deny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My little evolutionist joke is since they think birds are dinosaurs, we are living with dinosaurs today.  Ha ha.
> 
> We still have dinosaurs living today, as well.  I pointed out the coalacanth.  How about a plesiosaur?  Plenty of eyewitness and photographic evidence of these hidden baramins.
> 
> 
> I noticed your link was from the Smithsonian.  The extinction of dinosaurs is quite wrong.  Hopefully, the Smithsonian will give more credence to creation scientists in the near future since it is run by the USG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a single artifact, myth, or squiggle you've shown I can't quite easily give an alternative explanation for. For instance you just showed me the monster of troy as proof of dinosaurs and man living togheter. Unless you are trying to tell me you believe in the Minotaur, Hydra or Medusa it falls a bit short as trying to claim it's proof of anything, but that Greek Mythology was highly inventive. Scientist have spend both time and money trying to find the Loch Ness monster or like you trying to call it a Pleisiosaur. They haven't found her ,the picture you've shown has been confirmed a hoax. So how is it proof? I can go on and on.
> You're little joke is right but it also destroys your attack on evolution because, if you accept it, it proves evolution, if I accept it,and I do it is completly consistent with accepted science.It is perfectly understandable that after a meteor strike, small agile creatures have a higher chance of survival, exactly the type of dinosaurs that would have evolved into birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that every video or picture of bigfoot, nessie and apperently the lake champlain monster are blurry??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .
Click to expand...

Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I said in my previous post I don't even believe there are advanced civilazation within 40 lightyears so how you get to me believing theres civilazations on Mars makes me question you even read my posts.And to that point science has ruled out men on mars before we ever send a probe.
> I believe, and your right it is a belief that there is alien life for a couple of reasons. Science has found that liquid water is basicly the one condition that life needs. Wherever we find liquid water on earth we find life. Now the last couple of years we have found thousands of planets and quite a few of those planets seem to be in an orbit suitable for liquid water. So we have 2 conditions for life. Planets and the possibility of water wich is a simple compound of 2 of the most common elements . So since the universe is so vast that it's not unreasonable to assume that some kind of life will exist outside earth. Yes I belief in something without proof. There's 3 big differences between your faith and mine. My belief is based on observable facts, it isn't an unbelievable statement as an almighty being did it all ,and most importantly I allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. So you think that the finding of a coelacant is a blow to evolution. It isn't, it simply means that the bonefish was an evolutionary model good enough to survive until this day. There are other examples of those. Single cell organisms, turtles, crocs, sharks all have proven good enough to survive several mass extinction events.
> *How do you classify kinds in baraminoligy??????? What makes something one kind and not another, seems to be a simple question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Origin of Species: The Beak of the Finch | HHMI's BioInteractive
> This is field research of 2 bioligist over 40 years on finches. I urge you to watch the entire thing, but since I don't believe you will watch, I'll give some highlights. It records both a drought and a uncommenly wet period. Both of those have a significant effect on the population. Proving evolutionary changes. It also explains how they experimentally proved that altough there are about a dozen different species of finches they don't interbreed. Experiments have also been done under labconditions with fruitflies and I have already pointed out the whole bacteriel thing. So when you say evolution is faith without any proof you are plainly wrong.
> How do we know that evolution is really happening? . Another link to summaries. It doesn't just reiterate (better then I can) the fossil records. But it also show experimentally both in the lab and in the field different experiments that have been done confirming evolution. *You know the thing you say no experiments confirm.*Now about baraminology. They say that there are no genetic simularities between kinds. That's a whopper of a lie.Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals . This link provides a blip of genetic relationships between the different species. It has sources. It also illustrates something else, genetics act as a time capsule recording how closely in history the different species are related. *Try to explain that in another way?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The finch's beak shows micro changes which is part of speciation.  It does not show any macro changes.  Also, it took place is a short period of time.  Not thousands or even millions of years.  I do not think anyone is arguing speciation or natural selection.  That is part of baraminology.  Where is the experiment to show finches came from dinosaurs lol?  Or man from apes?
> 
> Many of Darwin's theories have been debunked.  He even debunked himself on occasion.  He wasn't the great scientist he is made out to be.  He's become an icon.  I would bet a cyber beer that religious Alfred Russel Wallace was a better biologist and scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What to you are macro changes? The finches on the Galapogos don't just constitute the one kind these researchers focused on. There are several kinds all different in size and diet. So these scientist found both a confermation that the enviremont had a severe impact on 1 species but it also clearly explains why from 1 population different subsecies develop. In time it's also quite easy to see how if the process continues completly different species will develop. Like I said baraminoligy flat out refuse to acknowledge that genetics clearly shows a percentage of relatedness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me an experiment to show birds came from dinosaurs?  Or man from apes?  Or land animals from a sea creature?  Speciation or natural selection happen in a short period of time, so it is demonstrable according to baraminology.  The same should be true if we can get a man-like animal from a sea creature.  You do not need hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
Click to expand...

Meet archeopteryx this creature is considered a transitionary fossil between bird and dinosaur. It had several avian features, such as a wishbone, flight feathers, wings, and a partially reversed first toe along with dinosaur and theropod features.




Meet lucy. She was a small chimplike homonid but she walked bipedaly at least partially.




This is what we find in the field. Now this is opposed to your blurry pictures, myths, artistic representations, unsubstanciated claims. I have and contiue to give evidence using what is available online. I just want one single thing for you. Show me any case of a dinosaur and large mamal in the same strata? Where talking about the 2  dominant classification of animals in 2 different timeperiods. We can't both be right. So again if genesis happened these 2 and I'll use your terms "kinds" lived togheter so they should be found togheter. If not accepted science is right. Unless of course you can come up with an explanation why they somehow all ended up in different strata. Just know archeoligist are holding back the evidence is not an acceptable excuse without evidence.


----------



## BreezeWood

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can basicly draw anything if you want to . I made a campfire and a hilly terrain. It's kind of like looking at clouds. You can make it mean watever you want it to mean.Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the "sauropod dinosaur" turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains.Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge      |     Science | Smithsonian
> 
> 
> there you go
> View attachment 78212
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but this isn't the only drawing, historical or cultural artifact I provided from every continent and different time periods.  The evidence is overwhelming, but the atheists and secular scientists continue to lie or deny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My little evolutionist joke is since they think birds are dinosaurs, we are living with dinosaurs today.  Ha ha.
> 
> We still have dinosaurs living today, as well.  I pointed out the coalacanth.  How about a plesiosaur?  Plenty of eyewitness and photographic evidence of these hidden baramins.
> 
> 
> I noticed your link was from the Smithsonian.  The extinction of dinosaurs is quite wrong.  Hopefully, the Smithsonian will give more credence to creation scientists in the near future since it is run by the USG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a single artifact, myth, or squiggle you've shown I can't quite easily give an alternative explanation for. For instance you just showed me the monster of troy as proof of dinosaurs and man living togheter. Unless you are trying to tell me you believe in the Minotaur, Hydra or Medusa it falls a bit short as trying to claim it's proof of anything, but that Greek Mythology was highly inventive. Scientist have spend both time and money trying to find the Loch Ness monster or like you trying to call it a Pleisiosaur. They haven't found her ,the picture you've shown has been confirmed a hoax. So how is it proof? I can go on and on.
> You're little joke is right but it also destroys your attack on evolution because, if you accept it, it proves evolution, if I accept it,and I do it is completly consistent with accepted science.It is perfectly understandable that after a meteor strike, small agile creatures have a higher chance of survival, exactly the type of dinosaurs that would have evolved into birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that every video or picture of bigfoot, nessie and apperently the lake champlain monster are blurry??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
Click to expand...

.


forkup said:


> But I'd like to understand the joke.






> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.




... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS



the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....



.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> The black lines are suppose to be water on Mars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or is it just shifting sands from the wind?


NASA Confirms Evidence That Liquid Water Flows on Today’s Mars. This is the latest on water on Mars. Now I don't know why we are talking about Mars all off a sudden. I will say this. There is water on mars in the form of ice at the poles. This is significant for 2 reasons. First because water is the most important consumable on long term missions. But more importantly because split into hydrogen and oxygen it provides, both air and energy. All of these things you can produce locally as supposed to on the moon where we would have to import every pound of the stuff you would need. Would it be difficult yes, I'll say even near impossibe with current technoligy. All I can say to that, Kennedy pushed the US to the Moon when we hadn't even put anybody in orbit.


----------



## james bond

Vandalshandle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I have the following photo that I took with my Brownie back in 1947:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most would say it was a staged photo for a musical.  However, this one of Civil War soldiers with a creature that looks like a pteranodon isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a little know fact that the dinosaurs are extinct because they fought on the wrong side in the Civil War.
Click to expand...


This photo is real because it was published in a book way before photoshop or computers existed.  No one has been able to prove it is fake although many have tried.


----------



## Vandalshandle

james bond said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I have the following photo that I took with my Brownie back in 1947:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most would say it was a staged photo for a musical.  However, this one of Civil War soldiers with a creature that looks like a pteranodon isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a little know fact that the dinosaurs are extinct because they fought on the wrong side in the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This photo is real because it was published in a book way before photoshop or computers existed.  No one has been able to prove it is fake although many have tried.
Click to expand...


I know all about it. My great grandfather fought for the South from Shilo to Franklinton, and he passed down stories of charging Grant's armies riding a Tyrannous Rex. He had three of them shot out from under him. After the war, he took up ranching in Texas. here is a photo of him:


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but this isn't the only drawing, historical or cultural artifact I provided from every continent and different time periods.  The evidence is overwhelming, but the atheists and secular scientists continue to lie or deny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My little evolutionist joke is since they think birds are dinosaurs, we are living with dinosaurs today.  Ha ha.
> 
> We still have dinosaurs living today, as well.  I pointed out the coalacanth.  How about a plesiosaur?  Plenty of eyewitness and photographic evidence of these hidden baramins.
> 
> 
> I noticed your link was from the Smithsonian.  The extinction of dinosaurs is quite wrong.  Hopefully, the Smithsonian will give more credence to creation scientists in the near future since it is run by the USG.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single artifact, myth, or squiggle you've shown I can't quite easily give an alternative explanation for. For instance you just showed me the monster of troy as proof of dinosaurs and man living togheter. Unless you are trying to tell me you believe in the Minotaur, Hydra or Medusa it falls a bit short as trying to claim it's proof of anything, but that Greek Mythology was highly inventive. Scientist have spend both time and money trying to find the Loch Ness monster or like you trying to call it a Pleisiosaur. They haven't found her ,the picture you've shown has been confirmed a hoax. So how is it proof? I can go on and on.
> You're little joke is right but it also destroys your attack on evolution because, if you accept it, it proves evolution, if I accept it,and I do it is completly consistent with accepted science.It is perfectly understandable that after a meteor strike, small agile creatures have a higher chance of survival, exactly the type of dinosaurs that would have evolved into birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it that every video or picture of bigfoot, nessie and apperently the lake champlain monster are blurry??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?

More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine. 

I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.


----------



## james bond

Vandalshandle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I have the following photo that I took with my Brownie back in 1947:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most would say it was a staged photo for a musical.  However, this one of Civil War soldiers with a creature that looks like a pteranodon isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a little know fact that the dinosaurs are extinct because they fought on the wrong side in the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This photo is real because it was published in a book way before photoshop or computers existed.  No one has been able to prove it is fake although many have tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about it. My great grandfather fought for the South from Shilo to Franklinton, and he passed down stories of charging Grant's armies riding a Tyrannous Rex. He had three of them shot out from under him. After the war, he took up ranching in Texas. here is a photo of him:
Click to expand...


Was he a pseudologist?


----------



## Vandalshandle

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single artifact, myth, or squiggle you've shown I can't quite easily give an alternative explanation for. For instance you just showed me the monster of troy as proof of dinosaurs and man living togheter. Unless you are trying to tell me you believe in the Minotaur, Hydra or Medusa it falls a bit short as trying to claim it's proof of anything, but that Greek Mythology was highly inventive. Scientist have spend both time and money trying to find the Loch Ness monster or like you trying to call it a Pleisiosaur. They haven't found her ,the picture you've shown has been confirmed a hoax. So how is it proof? I can go on and on.
> You're little joke is right but it also destroys your attack on evolution because, if you accept it, it proves evolution, if I accept it,and I do it is completly consistent with accepted science.It is perfectly understandable that after a meteor strike, small agile creatures have a higher chance of survival, exactly the type of dinosaurs that would have evolved into birds.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every video or picture of bigfoot, nessie and apperently the lake champlain monster are blurry??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
Click to expand...


All of such scientists have degrees from Oral Roberts U and Liberty University.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the evidence above shows you do not read my posts.  Are they too complex for you?  I never said anything about intelligent "aliens" living on Mars.  I was questioning why NASA and other secular scientists are proposing to colonize there?  In an earlier post, I said that money would be better spent colonizing the moon and trying to build a shuttle station and resupply outpost for space stations.  That's what Europeans, Russians and Chinese will be doing with the goal of making money.  Besides, Jesus loves the moon and the Bible talks about the moon.  There is money to made on the moon.  Trying to colonize Mars would be a death sentence.  So, we agree on not colonizing Mars.
> 
> And just because they found some water, if it is indeed water, it does not mean life.  There has to be other conditions for life as pointed out by the fine tuning theory.  Thus, vastness and billions of planets and stars does not mean life.  I guess you just chose to ignore that.  If I had to guess on which planet to try and colonize besides Earth, then it would be Europa.  It's a moon of Jupiter and holds vast oceans of underground water.  Otherwise, we will probably not find life on the other planets even within 40 lightyears assuming we can travel that far.  I think you understand that we can travel forward in time, but you did not know how.  The hypothesis is that by traveling at the speed of light and going into space and then returning, one can travel into the future on Earth.  Those of the spaceship able to make the journey will only have aged a year while those on Earth would have aged around 30.  The answer to how one can travel at the speed of light could be in the Bible, too, and that is by using magnetic propulsion.  This is explained in Genesis.  The thinking behind magnetic propulsion systems came out the Bible.  The secular scientists have their own propulsion systems, but they are still theory.
> 
> At least, you admit you believe in some of these wacky ideas without proof.  That is "faith," but in the wrong faith-based system. Evolution is also a faith-based system.  If it was not, then their scientists would have the experiments to back their theories up.  That is one method of proof in science to the creation scientists which you asked for.  Another would be some logical argument.  Another would be scientific facts and historical truth.  I mentioned all of these before as "proof."  Where is that with evolution?  Between the two systems, the Kalam Cosmological argument tells us logically that God created the universe and all that is in it.  There is nothing in evolution that remotely comes close.
> 
> In conclusion, I'll just continue to believe that you did not understand the things I was saying and kept continuing to believe in your scientific fairy tales.  In the end, truth will win out.  There is no way I can convince anyone that their worldview may be wrong.  They would have to have an open mind and consider the other side.  Only they have the power to change their own mind.  In the end, truth will win out and my faith-based system tells me that there are no atheists in the afterlife.
> 
> To answer your questions about baraminology, here is a link as an introduction and one as an overview -- Introduction to Baraminology -- What are the Genesis “kinds”? • ChristianAnswers.Net .  I am trying to follow this one right now -- OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | Baraminology .  Does it show that humans could not have descended from apes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Origin of Species: The Beak of the Finch | HHMI's BioInteractive
> This is field research of 2 bioligist over 40 years on finches. I urge you to watch the entire thing, but since I don't believe you will watch, I'll give some highlights. It records both a drought and a uncommenly wet period. Both of those have a significant effect on the population. Proving evolutionary changes. It also explains how they experimentally proved that altough there are about a dozen different species of finches they don't interbreed. Experiments have also been done under labconditions with fruitflies and I have already pointed out the whole bacteriel thing. So when you say evolution is faith without any proof you are plainly wrong.
> How do we know that evolution is really happening? . Another link to summaries. It doesn't just reiterate (better then I can) the fossil records. But it also show experimentally both in the lab and in the field different experiments that have been done confirming evolution. *You know the thing you say no experiments confirm.*Now about baraminology. They say that there are no genetic simularities between kinds. That's a whopper of a lie.Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals . This link provides a blip of genetic relationships between the different species. It has sources. It also illustrates something else, genetics act as a time capsule recording how closely in history the different species are related. *Try to explain that in another way?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The finch's beak shows micro changes which is part of speciation.  It does not show any macro changes.  Also, it took place is a short period of time.  Not thousands or even millions of years.  I do not think anyone is arguing speciation or natural selection.  That is part of baraminology.  Where is the experiment to show finches came from dinosaurs lol?  Or man from apes?
> 
> Many of Darwin's theories have been debunked.  He even debunked himself on occasion.  He wasn't the great scientist he is made out to be.  He's become an icon.  I would bet a cyber beer that religious Alfred Russel Wallace was a better biologist and scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What to you are macro changes? The finches on the Galapogos don't just constitute the one kind these researchers focused on. There are several kinds all different in size and diet. So these scientist found both a confermation that the enviremont had a severe impact on 1 species but it also clearly explains why from 1 population different subsecies develop. In time it's also quite easy to see how if the process continues completly different species will develop. Like I said baraminoligy flat out refuse to acknowledge that genetics clearly shows a percentage of relatedness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me an experiment to show birds came from dinosaurs?  Or man from apes?  Or land animals from a sea creature?  Speciation or natural selection happen in a short period of time, so it is demonstrable according to baraminology.  The same should be true if we can get a man-like animal from a sea creature.  You do not need hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meet archeopteryx this creature is considered a transitionary fossil between bird and dinosaur. It had several avian features, such as a wishbone, flight feathers, wings, and a partially reversed first toe along with dinosaur and theropod features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet lucy. She was a small chimplike homonid but she walked bipedaly at least partially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we find in the field. Now this is opposed to your blurry pictures, myths, artistic representations, unsubstanciated claims. I have and contiue to give evidence using what is available online. I just want one single thing for you. Show me any case of a dinosaur and large mamal in the same strata? Where talking about the 2  dominant classification of animals in 2 different timeperiods. We can't both be right. So again if genesis happened these 2 and I'll use your terms "kinds" lived togheter so they should be found togheter. If not accepted science is right. Unless of course you can come up with an explanation why they somehow all ended up in different strata. Just know archeoligist are holding back the evidence is not an acceptable excuse without evidence.
Click to expand...


Is that Lucy's knee on the bottom?  That was found a mile away from the rest of the skeleton, so how can it be part of Lucy?  Thus, your skeleton does not prove humans walked upright.  Such fakery from the one accusing me a misrepresentations and unsubstanciated claims.  Evolutionists are big with what you listed and they steal theories from the creation scientists.

And archaeopteryx, the earliest bird, is not a transitional form -- Fossil Discovery Threatens Theory of Birds' Evolution .  Next.


----------



## james bond

Vandalshandle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every video or picture of bigfoot, nessie and apperently the lake champlain monster are blurry??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of such scientists have degrees from Oral Roberts U and Liberty University.
Click to expand...


They also get funded by finding "evidence" to show the ToE.  It's no use for the creation scientists to try and talk with these people anymore.  Their minds are already made up.


----------



## Vandalshandle

james bond said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of such scientists have degrees from Oral Roberts U and Liberty University.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also get funded by finding "evidence" to show the ToE.  It's no use for the creation scientists to try and talk with these people anymore.  Their minds are already made up.
Click to expand...


True. I have the same problem trying to have a rational discussion with people who, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, insist that the world is not flat.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a single artifact, myth, or squiggle you've shown I can't quite easily give an alternative explanation for. For instance you just showed me the monster of troy as proof of dinosaurs and man living togheter. Unless you are trying to tell me you believe in the Minotaur, Hydra or Medusa it falls a bit short as trying to claim it's proof of anything, but that Greek Mythology was highly inventive. Scientist have spend both time and money trying to find the Loch Ness monster or like you trying to call it a Pleisiosaur. They haven't found her ,the picture you've shown has been confirmed a hoax. So how is it proof? I can go on and on.
> You're little joke is right but it also destroys your attack on evolution because, if you accept it, it proves evolution, if I accept it,and I do it is completly consistent with accepted science.It is perfectly understandable that after a meteor strike, small agile creatures have a higher chance of survival, exactly the type of dinosaurs that would have evolved into birds.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every video or picture of bigfoot, nessie and apperently the lake champlain monster are blurry??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.





james bond said:


> I can validate my chronology.




depends on what your subject matter is Bond - 





> prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.


 - is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.


_*I can validate my chronology ...*_

your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates. 

.


----------



## sealybobo

Vandalshandle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed. I have the following photo that I took with my Brownie back in 1947:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most would say it was a staged photo for a musical.  However, this one of Civil War soldiers with a creature that looks like a pteranodon isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a little know fact that the dinosaurs are extinct because they fought on the wrong side in the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This photo is real because it was published in a book way before photoshop or computers existed.  No one has been able to prove it is fake although many have tried.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all about it. My great grandfather fought for the South from Shilo to Franklinton, and he passed down stories of charging Grant's armies riding a Tyrannous Rex. He had three of them shot out from under him. After the war, he took up ranching in Texas. here is a photo of him:
Click to expand...

Your grand pappy's as bad at riding those things as McCain is a pilot.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Origin of Species: The Beak of the Finch | HHMI's BioInteractive
> This is field research of 2 bioligist over 40 years on finches. I urge you to watch the entire thing, but since I don't believe you will watch, I'll give some highlights. It records both a drought and a uncommenly wet period. Both of those have a significant effect on the population. Proving evolutionary changes. It also explains how they experimentally proved that altough there are about a dozen different species of finches they don't interbreed. Experiments have also been done under labconditions with fruitflies and I have already pointed out the whole bacteriel thing. So when you say evolution is faith without any proof you are plainly wrong.
> How do we know that evolution is really happening? . Another link to summaries. It doesn't just reiterate (better then I can) the fossil records. But it also show experimentally both in the lab and in the field different experiments that have been done confirming evolution. *You know the thing you say no experiments confirm.*Now about baraminology. They say that there are no genetic simularities between kinds. That's a whopper of a lie.Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals . This link provides a blip of genetic relationships between the different species. It has sources. It also illustrates something else, genetics act as a time capsule recording how closely in history the different species are related. *Try to explain that in another way?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The finch's beak shows micro changes which is part of speciation.  It does not show any macro changes.  Also, it took place is a short period of time.  Not thousands or even millions of years.  I do not think anyone is arguing speciation or natural selection.  That is part of baraminology.  Where is the experiment to show finches came from dinosaurs lol?  Or man from apes?
> 
> Many of Darwin's theories have been debunked.  He even debunked himself on occasion.  He wasn't the great scientist he is made out to be.  He's become an icon.  I would bet a cyber beer that religious Alfred Russel Wallace was a better biologist and scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What to you are macro changes? The finches on the Galapogos don't just constitute the one kind these researchers focused on. There are several kinds all different in size and diet. So these scientist found both a confermation that the enviremont had a severe impact on 1 species but it also clearly explains why from 1 population different subsecies develop. In time it's also quite easy to see how if the process continues completly different species will develop. Like I said baraminoligy flat out refuse to acknowledge that genetics clearly shows a percentage of relatedness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me an experiment to show birds came from dinosaurs?  Or man from apes?  Or land animals from a sea creature?  Speciation or natural selection happen in a short period of time, so it is demonstrable according to baraminology.  The same should be true if we can get a man-like animal from a sea creature.  You do not need hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meet archeopteryx this creature is considered a transitionary fossil between bird and dinosaur. It had several avian features, such as a wishbone, flight feathers, wings, and a partially reversed first toe along with dinosaur and theropod features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet lucy. She was a small chimplike homonid but she walked bipedaly at least partially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we find in the field. Now this is opposed to your blurry pictures, myths, artistic representations, unsubstanciated claims. I have and contiue to give evidence using what is available online. I just want one single thing for you. Show me any case of a dinosaur and large mamal in the same strata? Where talking about the 2  dominant classification of animals in 2 different timeperiods. We can't both be right. So again if genesis happened these 2 and I'll use your terms "kinds" lived togheter so they should be found togheter. If not accepted science is right. Unless of course you can come up with an explanation why they somehow all ended up in different strata. Just know archeoligist are holding back the evidence is not an acceptable excuse without evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that Lucy's knee on the bottom?  That was found a mile away from the rest of the skeleton, so how can it be part of Lucy?  Thus, your skeleton does not prove humans walked upright.  Such fakery from the one accusing me a misrepresentations and unsubstanciated claims.  Evolutionists are big with what you listed and they steal theories from the creation scientists.
> 
> And archaeopteryx, the earliest bird, is not a transitional form -- Fossil Discovery Threatens Theory of Birds' Evolution .  Next.
Click to expand...

Proof James. I'm done with you putting out accusations without so much as a link I can confirm. I'll show you why .
"In the cautiously worded report of the new findings, the scientists referred to the feathers as nonavian -- that is, not related to birds -- and said, ''The exact relationship of Longisquama to birds is uncertain.''. That is verbatum in your link. This sentence shows that this is an initial hypothese so like every other thing you posted it is *NOT *proof. Again show me any  mixing off kinds backwarths in time like would have happened if genesis is true?????????


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.




may be a repeat, just guessing -

no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....

.


----------



## james bond

Vandalshandle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of such scientists have degrees from Oral Roberts U and Liberty University.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also get funded by finding "evidence" to show the ToE.  It's no use for the creation scientists to try and talk with these people anymore.  Their minds are already made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. I have the same problem trying to have a rational discussion with people who, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, insist that the world is not flat.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  What overwhelming evidence?  There is none.  Otherwise, you would have provided it already in front of all these people.  Atheist scientists couldn't even make protein outiside of a cell, the most basic building block.  What have these atheist scientists done for us lately?


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> may be a repeat, just guessing -
> 
> no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Evo is not a fact.  That's brainwashing.  It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that every video or picture of bigfoot, nessie and apperently the lake champlain monster are blurry??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can validate my chronology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends on what your subject matter is Bond -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.
> 
> 
> _*I can validate my chronology ...*_
> 
> your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility.  If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is?  Show us your knowledge Padwan.  Who invented this method of dating?  He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The finch's beak shows micro changes which is part of speciation.  It does not show any macro changes.  Also, it took place is a short period of time.  Not thousands or even millions of years.  I do not think anyone is arguing speciation or natural selection.  That is part of baraminology.  Where is the experiment to show finches came from dinosaurs lol?  Or man from apes?
> 
> Many of Darwin's theories have been debunked.  He even debunked himself on occasion.  He wasn't the great scientist he is made out to be.  He's become an icon.  I would bet a cyber beer that religious Alfred Russel Wallace was a better biologist and scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> What to you are macro changes? The finches on the Galapogos don't just constitute the one kind these researchers focused on. There are several kinds all different in size and diet. So these scientist found both a confermation that the enviremont had a severe impact on 1 species but it also clearly explains why from 1 population different subsecies develop. In time it's also quite easy to see how if the process continues completly different species will develop. Like I said baraminoligy flat out refuse to acknowledge that genetics clearly shows a percentage of relatedness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me an experiment to show birds came from dinosaurs?  Or man from apes?  Or land animals from a sea creature?  Speciation or natural selection happen in a short period of time, so it is demonstrable according to baraminology.  The same should be true if we can get a man-like animal from a sea creature.  You do not need hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meet archeopteryx this creature is considered a transitionary fossil between bird and dinosaur. It had several avian features, such as a wishbone, flight feathers, wings, and a partially reversed first toe along with dinosaur and theropod features.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet lucy. She was a small chimplike homonid but she walked bipedaly at least partially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we find in the field. Now this is opposed to your blurry pictures, myths, artistic representations, unsubstanciated claims. I have and contiue to give evidence using what is available online. I just want one single thing for you. Show me any case of a dinosaur and large mamal in the same strata? Where talking about the 2  dominant classification of animals in 2 different timeperiods. We can't both be right. So again if genesis happened these 2 and I'll use your terms "kinds" lived togheter so they should be found togheter. If not accepted science is right. Unless of course you can come up with an explanation why they somehow all ended up in different strata. Just know archeoligist are holding back the evidence is not an acceptable excuse without evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that Lucy's knee on the bottom?  That was found a mile away from the rest of the skeleton, so how can it be part of Lucy?  Thus, your skeleton does not prove humans walked upright.  Such fakery from the one accusing me a misrepresentations and unsubstanciated claims.  Evolutionists are big with what you listed and they steal theories from the creation scientists.
> 
> And archaeopteryx, the earliest bird, is not a transitional form -- Fossil Discovery Threatens Theory of Birds' Evolution .  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof James. I'm done with you putting out accusations without so much as a link I can confirm. I'll show you why .
> "In the cautiously worded report of the new findings, the scientists referred to the feathers as nonavian -- that is, not related to birds -- and said, ''The exact relationship of Longisquama to birds is uncertain.''. That is verbatum in your link. This sentence shows that this is an initial hypothese so like every other thing you posted it is *NOT *proof. Again show me any  mixing off kinds backwarths in time like would have happened if genesis is true?????????
Click to expand...


So, your Lucy as a missing link has been debunked as I figured.  This birds from dinosaurs theory is considered fact by most atheist scientists and is displayed as such in museums.  There may be a sign that says some scientists disagree.  It's all part of the evolutionary politics, i.e. evolution displays get funding.  The archaeopteryx research was done by Oregon State University.  The evidence shows bird fossils were found earlier is the fossil record from theropods (allosaurus, ceratosaurus, tyrannosaurus).  archaeopteryx is late Jurassic while velociraptor and deinonychus are found in Cretaceous.  In Genesis, birds were created on the 5th day and the dinosaurs or land animals on the 6th.  Lucy and the archaeopteryx is more evidence for creation. 

Didn't I already show the evidence already when we talked about the sediment on the sea floor?  Creation scientist, Jake Hebert writes, ""Toward the end of the Genesis Flood, sheets of water receding off the continents would have rapidly eroded and dumped enormous amounts of sediment into the ocean basins," Hebert writes. "The presence of geological features called _planation surfaces_ on every continent is very difficult for uniformitarian scientists to explain, but it is perfectly consistent with the Flood's rapid erosion and deposition of sediment.  Furthermore, the warm, mineral-rich oceans during and after the Flood would have been conducive to the growth of phytoplankton such as algae."  However, his writing is not accepted by mainstream science.  See below.

Thus, the news that you are getting from these "secular" scientists is very one-sided.  You're not getting the whole story from the atheist scientists, especially when they cannot explain something.  These took supposedly millions of years to form, yet they were found by researchers trolling for deep sea creatures.






Vast Bed of Metal Balls Found in Deep Sea


----------



## Vandalshandle

james bond said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of such scientists have degrees from Oral Roberts U and Liberty University.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also get funded by finding "evidence" to show the ToE.  It's no use for the creation scientists to try and talk with these people anymore.  Their minds are already made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. I have the same problem trying to have a rational discussion with people who, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, insist that the world is not flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  What overwhelming evidence?  There is none.  Otherwise, you would have provided it already in front of all these people.  Atheist scientists couldn't even make protein outiside of a cell, the most basic building block.  What have these atheist scientists done for us lately?
Click to expand...


Well, for one thing, I am grateful to them for never ringing my front door bell to give me a copy of the Watchtower....


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> may be a repeat, just guessing -
> 
> no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact.  That's brainwashing.  It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
Click to expand...

.




james bond said:


> Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.





james bond said:


> Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.






_*
That's brainwashing .*_


what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.





james bond said:


> It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.



self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  It's natural selection according to the creation scientists.  Champ and creatures like it are very quick and fast in their environment either to catch prey or not be caught by prey.  So much for putting your evo knowledge to practical use .
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can validate my chronology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends on what your subject matter is Bond -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.
> 
> 
> _*I can validate my chronology ...*_
> 
> your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility.  If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is?  Show us your knowledge Padwan.  Who invented this method of dating?  He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.
Click to expand...

Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering.* If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?*


----------



## james bond

Vandalshandle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of such scientists have degrees from Oral Roberts U and Liberty University.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also get funded by finding "evidence" to show the ToE.  It's no use for the creation scientists to try and talk with these people anymore.  Their minds are already made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. I have the same problem trying to have a rational discussion with people who, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, insist that the world is not flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  What overwhelming evidence?  There is none.  Otherwise, you would have provided it already in front of all these people.  Atheist scientists couldn't even make protein outiside of a cell, the most basic building block.  What have these atheist scientists done for us lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for one thing, I am grateful to them for never ringing my front door bell to give me a copy of the Watchtower....
Click to expand...


Yeah, but you never really listen to the JW.  It's as if Jesus came to your door.  They come to my door, and I listen to them even though I do not agree with them about their non-Trinity version.  It takes less than ten minutes.  Mostly, I get to hear new passages which I have not heard of before and I am enriched.  Sometimes, we talk about the neighborhood gossip since they know some of my neighbors.  

As for the atheists and I, one of us is wrong and so far, it has been the atheists who have been usually wrong.  If they're right about something, then I'm open minded enough to change my view.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> may be a repeat, just guessing -
> 
> no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact.  That's brainwashing.  It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> That's brainwashing .*_
> 
> 
> what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please clarefy. I don't nind being made fun of. But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I'd like to understand the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recorded history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.
> 
> *Cave paintings* (also known as "parietal art") are painted drawings on cave walls or ceilings, mainly of prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can validate my chronology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends on what your subject matter is Bond -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.
> 
> 
> _*I can validate my chronology ...*_
> 
> your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility.  If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is?  Show us your knowledge Padwan.  Who invented this method of dating?  He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering.* If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?*
Click to expand...


I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating.  RD was invented by Clair Patterson.  I got that from an evolution website.  What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning.  If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived.  I think we can agree on this.  However, we cannot tell when they started living.  We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it.  With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions.  One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is.  If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article.  Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves.  No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it.  They only do it in the evolution news and articles.  So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old?  I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..

As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims.  They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated.  The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location.  The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution.  It's really a circular argument.  These layers prove evolution and its timeline.  In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old.  So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time.  How do you know how old these rocks are?  By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.


----------



## james bond

The evidence for creation.  Here are the claims of scientists against evolution on the rock layers and their proof.

Sedimentary rocks are are rocks like sandstone or limestone, but not lava flows. They were formed when mud settled out of the water, and the mud hardened into stone.

Pictures of Red Rock Canyon in Nevada and California.
red rock canyon stte park nevada - Bing images

Sedimentary rocks are often recognized by their layered appearance. The red and gray layers of rock in most of Red Rock Canyon are sedimentary rocks. But notice the rocks at the southern tip of the canyon, where the State of California has so thoughtfully carved away part of the cliff to build the southbound lanes of Highway 14. Those rocks are NOT sedimentary. They are blotchy, and don’t have layers. These are metamorphic rocks.

The metamorphic rocks at the south end of Red Rock Canyon acted as a dam that trapped some muddy water to the north of them.  This muddy water formed the red and gray layered rocks that we like to take pictures of.

Until recently, it seemed indisputable that thick layers of sedimentary rocks represented a long period of time.  Sedimentary rocks tend to be made up of paper-thin stratifications that one might think were annual deposits, just like annual tree rings.  Therefore, geologists believed that thick banks of layered rocks represented long, unbroken records of millions of years of time.  The fossils found in the bottom layers, therefore, would be much older than the fossils in the top layers.

Sedimentary rock layers formed by Mt. St. Helens volcano
sedimentary rock layers formed by mt st helens volcano - Bing images

But recent geological events have shown that layered rocks can be formed very quickly.  A dramatic demonstration occurred when Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980. The steam and lava coming from the volcano melted the ice cap on Mount St. Helens, causing a huge amount of water to flow down the mountain. This water mixed with dirt and ash to form a lot of very muddy water. This mud quickly turned to rock.

Subsequent eruptions caused more mud flows which eroded canyons in the newly formed rock, exposing layers of sedimentary rock that looked like they had been formed over millions of years.  But scientists knew the day and the hour when they were formed.

One might argue that Mount St. Helens is a unique event.  But in 1986, Guy Berthault presented a paper to the French Academy of Sciences showing how "multiple laminations form spontaneously during sedimentation of heterogranular mixtures."  Subsequent work was presented to the French Academy of Sciences in 1988 and the Bulletin of the Geology Society of France in 1993.  These papers were translated into English and published in Creation Ex Nihilo Tehnical Journal (Cr) in 1988, 1990, 1994.  It wasn’t until January 8, 1998, that the prestigious journal Nature finally published a similar paper (without reference to Guy Berthault’s work) that came to the same conclusion: sediment commonly settles into finely layered banks.

Not only has it been demonstrated in the laboratory, the simultaneous formation of multiple layers of sedimentary rock has been observed naturally occurring in the Bay of Naples, Italy, and on the ocean floor.

Guy Berthault's Work

Here's an experimental proof of rapid sedimentation


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> may be a repeat, just guessing -
> 
> no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact.  That's brainwashing.  It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> That's brainwashing .*_
> 
> 
> what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.



_*
*_

there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science_*, *_Podunk_*.



Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -

That's brainwashing ... Bond -
*_

no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...

.


----------



## OZman

BreezeWood said:


> no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...



Religions can't wait to fill children's heads with delusions, it is their MO.

“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”
― Aristotle, The Philosophy of Aristotle


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> ... 3500 B.C. + 2016 A.D  =  5516 recorded history + 38,000 prehistory = 40,016 YEARS
> 
> 
> 
> the joke must be that irregardless Bond's claim of dinesours existing with modern man there is still a 34,000 thousand year difference in his claim for the universes 6000 year existance and the chronology of his own postings ....
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can validate my chronology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends on what your subject matter is Bond -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.
> 
> 
> _*I can validate my chronology ...*_
> 
> your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility.  If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is?  Show us your knowledge Padwan.  Who invented this method of dating?  He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering.* If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating.  RD was invented by Clair Patterson.  I got that from an evolution website.  What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning.  If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived.  I think we can agree on this.  However, we cannot tell when they started living.  We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it.  With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions.  One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is.  If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article.  Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves.  No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it.  They only do it in the evolution news and articles.  So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old?  I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..
> 
> As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims.  They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated.  The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location.  The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution.  It's really a circular argument.  These layers prove evolution and its timeline.  In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old.  So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time.  How do you know how old these rocks are?  By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.
Click to expand...

So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong.* If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember*. I will not let  go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's come to that time where I wrap up. Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> may be a repeat, just guessing -
> 
> no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact.  That's brainwashing.  It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> That's brainwashing .*_
> 
> 
> what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> *_
> 
> there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science_*, *_Podunk_*.
> 
> 
> 
> Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -
> 
> That's brainwashing ... Bond -
> *_
> 
> no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  Google again.  You got all that atheist stuff stuck in your head.

I just gave you the experimental evidence and Mt. St. Helens to explain the geographic layers.  It is based on location and not time as the layers do not take millions of years to form.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong. 

In case you missed it, I say he who laughs last, laughs best in the battle between atheists and creationists.  I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables, "He laughs best that laughs last."

If I win, you'll be hearing this as JB's last laugh.  I loved those Batman movies of Christopher Nolan.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  What is your evidence for 38,000 years of prehistory?
> 
> More evolution chronology, and you are mixing it with mine.
> 
> I can validate my chronology.  The oldest living trees on the planet are thought to be around 10,000 years and found high on the mountains.  Why aren't they found at lower levels?  Did some catastrophe occur to explain it like a global flood?  And why can scientists radiocarbon date dinosaur fossils to around 10,000 years even though evolution scientists will not accept it as accurate readings?  The organic material still remains and can be dated.  Different scientists from different lands have been able to radiocarbon date dinosaurs fossils to around 10,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can validate my chronology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends on what your subject matter is Bond -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prehistoric origin, to some 40,000 years ago (around 38,000 BCE) in both Asia and Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> - is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.
> 
> 
> _*I can validate my chronology ...*_
> 
> your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility.  If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is?  Show us your knowledge Padwan.  Who invented this method of dating?  He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering.* If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating.  RD was invented by Clair Patterson.  I got that from an evolution website.  What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning.  If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived.  I think we can agree on this.  However, we cannot tell when they started living.  We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it.  With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions.  One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is.  If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article.  Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves.  No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it.  They only do it in the evolution news and articles.  So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old?  I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..
> 
> As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims.  They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated.  The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location.  The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution.  It's really a circular argument.  These layers prove evolution and its timeline.  In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old.  So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time.  How do you know how old these rocks are?  By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong.* If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember*. I will not let  go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is
Click to expand...


First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.

This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> depends on what your subject matter is Bond - - is reputable irregardless which source by the preponderance of verifiable data correlating multiple strata of varying fields of study as were included.
> 
> 
> _*I can validate my chronology ...*_
> 
> your turn Bond, feel free to do so, the life forms during the anarobic atmosphere on Earth to aerobic (free oxygen) as the atmosphere changed and when conducive for dinosaurs and when for primates.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility.  If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is?  Show us your knowledge Padwan.  Who invented this method of dating?  He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering.* If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating.  RD was invented by Clair Patterson.  I got that from an evolution website.  What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning.  If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived.  I think we can agree on this.  However, we cannot tell when they started living.  We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it.  With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions.  One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is.  If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article.  Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves.  No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it.  They only do it in the evolution news and articles.  So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old?  I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..
> 
> As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims.  They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated.  The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location.  The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution.  It's really a circular argument.  These layers prove evolution and its timeline.  In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old.  So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time.  How do you know how old these rocks are?  By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong.* If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember*. I will not let  go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.
> 
> This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.
Click to expand...

I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> may be a repeat, just guessing -
> 
> no brainwashing Bond, for some its been a 2016 year known fact ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact.  That's brainwashing.  It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> That's brainwashing .*_
> 
> 
> what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> *_
> 
> there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science_*, *_Podunk_*.
> 
> 
> 
> Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -
> 
> That's brainwashing ... Bond -
> *_
> 
> no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Google again.  You got all that atheist stuff stuck in your head.
> 
> I just gave you the experimental evidence and Mt. St. Helens to explain the geographic layers.  It is based on location and not time as the layers do not take millions of years to form.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong.
> 
> In case you missed it, I say he who laughs last, laughs best in the battle between atheists and creationists.  I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables, "He laughs best that laughs last."
> 
> If I win, you'll be hearing this as JB's last laugh.  I loved those Batman movies of Christopher Nolan.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Ha ha. Google again.



there are no taxpayer funded institutions teaching creationist ideology as science ...




james bond said:


> I say he who laughs last, laughs best ... I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables,



if so they plagiarized Confucius ... similar to your leap from reality.


haha 

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not and can not validate your chronology nor that you have credibility.  If I give you a moon rock, how does one tell how old it is?  Show us your knowledge Padwan.  Who invented this method of dating?  He must be someone who's a celebrity by now.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering.* If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating.  RD was invented by Clair Patterson.  I got that from an evolution website.  What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning.  If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived.  I think we can agree on this.  However, we cannot tell when they started living.  We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it.  With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions.  One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is.  If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article.  Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves.  No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it.  They only do it in the evolution news and articles.  So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old?  I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..
> 
> As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims.  They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated.  The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location.  The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution.  It's really a circular argument.  These layers prove evolution and its timeline.  In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old.  So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time.  How do you know how old these rocks are?  By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong.* If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember*. I will not let  go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.
> 
> This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.

This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that drives creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've done that.

In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.

I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.

In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.

I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.

All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact.  That's brainwashing.  It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, it seems that people today have been brainwashed into thinking the Bible isn't good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evo is not a fact. That's brainwashing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> That's brainwashing .*_
> 
> 
> what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good thing creation science is catching on and being taught in schools nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> *_
> 
> there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science_*, *_Podunk_*.
> 
> 
> 
> Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -
> 
> That's brainwashing ... Bond -
> *_
> 
> no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Google again.  You got all that atheist stuff stuck in your head.
> 
> I just gave you the experimental evidence and Mt. St. Helens to explain the geographic layers.  It is based on location and not time as the layers do not take millions of years to form.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong.
> 
> In case you missed it, I say he who laughs last, laughs best in the battle between atheists and creationists.  I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables, "He laughs best that laughs last."
> 
> If I win, you'll be hearing this as JB's last laugh.  I loved those Batman movies of Christopher Nolan.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha. Google again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there are no taxpayer funded institutions teaching creationist ideology as science ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say he who laughs last, laughs best ... I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if so they plagiarized Confucius ... similar to your leap from reality.
> 
> 
> haha
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No plagiarism.  I gave credit to Aesop.  Again, you are wrong.  Lol.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets forget about dating. There are litterally dozens of way to date, some ways less accurate, other ways more; All can be used to find things older then 6000 years But that's not what I mean by chronoligy and you know it.. All over the world there is a pattern in the stratas fossils. The lowest layers contain no life, above that signs of exclusively bacterial life, the layer above that contains bacterial plus marine life, the layer above that you'll find bacterial, marine and amphibian lifeforms, above that dinosaurs and small mamals are added, and finaly in the newest layers humanoids appear. This is true worldwide. You will of course very rarely find all different rock ages represented, altough it does happen. And I didn't add all classes of aimals. The point is tough that the chronoligy of it is always true. So for the last time, no evasions, deflections or not answering.* If Genesis is true why does this chronoligy exist and if it doesn't exist give me examples?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating.  RD was invented by Clair Patterson.  I got that from an evolution website.  What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning.  If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived.  I think we can agree on this.  However, we cannot tell when they started living.  We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it.  With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions.  One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is.  If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article.  Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves.  No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it.  They only do it in the evolution news and articles.  So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old?  I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..
> 
> As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims.  They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated.  The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location.  The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution.  It's really a circular argument.  These layers prove evolution and its timeline.  In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old.  So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time.  How do you know how old these rocks are?  By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong.* If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember*. I will not let  go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.
> 
> This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
Click to expand...

You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*
> That's brainwashing .*_
> 
> 
> what Bond can not stand is people having an open mind rather than being constrained to his single undocumented book - as being somehow brainwashed by a mysterious conspiracy ... rather than his own state of self complacency.
> 
> 
> 
> self congratulatory delusion or do you have a link ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to google which states teach creation science and that private schools teach it, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> *_
> 
> there are no state taxpayer funded schools that teach creation science_*, *_Podunk_*.
> 
> 
> 
> Bond: and that private schools teach it, too. -
> 
> That's brainwashing ... Bond -
> *_
> 
> no, like you they are brainwashing innocent children ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Google again.  You got all that atheist stuff stuck in your head.
> 
> I just gave you the experimental evidence and Mt. St. Helens to explain the geographic layers.  It is based on location and not time as the layers do not take millions of years to form.  Again, atheist scientists are wrong.
> 
> In case you missed it, I say he who laughs last, laughs best in the battle between atheists and creationists.  I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables, "He laughs best that laughs last."
> 
> If I win, you'll be hearing this as JB's last laugh.  I loved those Batman movies of Christopher Nolan.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha. Google again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there are no taxpayer funded institutions teaching creationist ideology as science ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say he who laughs last, laughs best ... I think that is one of the lessons of Aesop's Fables,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if so they plagiarized Confucius ... similar to your leap from reality.
> 
> 
> haha
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No plagiarism.  I gave credit to Aesop.  Again, you are wrong.  Lol.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> No plagiarism. I gave credit to Aesop. Again, you are wrong. Lol.




it's not from Aesop and certainly is not a fable, christian ... "He who laughs last laughs longest" is Confucius.

we're still waiting for your taxpayer funded institution that teaches creation theology as science ...



considering your reliance as proof for an immediate universe there must be at least one you can produce as a _*qualified source*_ ....

.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, _*and I think I have more than adequately shown that.*_ Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.



_*
and I think I have more than adequately shown that ...*_


only on a discussion forum where delusion deviates from reality - in your own mind.





james bond said:


> I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.



the failure is not in the scientific establishment composed to include religious consideration but of the evidence or lack of the creationist are unable to provide.





james bond said:


> Mutation is generally negative or neutral. It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.



there are no links for your assertion but from unqualified creationist websites.






james bond said:


> I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer. I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.



pure mental delusion ...






james bond said:


> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup. I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.



there is no doubt who has spoken for the truth rather than delusion irregardless the outcome.





james bond said:


> Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known. That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.



what the Almighty said Bond was to know the truth before your body expires, you needn't expect the chance afterwards ....





james bond said:


> If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?" No judgment. No consequences. Just loss of consciousness and death. Ha ha.



evolution is the consequence over time in a progression of change that does lead to Judgement with renewal and is a pathway to the Everlasting it is a part of. it is life without death.

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have chronology, but it's not based on radiometric dating.  RD was invented by Clair Patterson.  I got that from an evolution website.  What the creation scientists and other scientists who do not believe in evolution is criticize the method and not knowing how much radioactive material there was in the beginning.  If some living thing, plant or animal, died, then we can tell how long they lived.  I think we can agree on this.  However, we cannot tell when they started living.  We can date inanimate things with it, too, as I understand it.  With radiocarbon dating, one can date something, assuming it is less than 100,000 years old, and under certain conditions.  One of the things that made me question the dating is because every news or article I read on old earth that has to do with evolution has to tell me how old the earth is, how old a type of fossil is or how old the dinosaur or whatever they are talking about is.  If these things are facts, then I do not need to be told in every article.  Yet, it continued to be done over and over until I started questioning just why they keep repeating themselves.  No one repeats the earth is round or the sun is 93 millions of miles (150 millions of km) away each time we discuss it.  They only do it in the evolution news and articles.  So, what living thing has lived more than 6,000 years old?  I already mentioned the trees found high in the mountains, the diamonds found in the coal layer, dinosaur fossils with living tissue still there, etc..
> 
> As for the layers, you are not stating fact, but what the evolutionists' claims.  They claim that the fossil record shows evolution is true just like you stated.  The layers are there because that is where the plants, animals or humans were when they were buried, and is not based on chronology, but location.  The chronological age that they claim is based on the assumptions of an old earth and the theory of evolution.  It's really a circular argument.  These layers prove evolution and its timeline.  In evolution, we assume an old earth, and thus, these layers are billions of years old.  So, I have shown you did not consider my previous argument of location and not time.  How do you know how old these rocks are?  By radiometric dating, and I've already showed you how inaccurate it can be and it does not tell us what you assume of a starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong.* If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember*. I will not let  go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.
> 
> This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock. 

I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?

Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.

I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.

The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha. 

Cosmology/Astronomy
Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.

Earth Sciences
Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.

Biology
The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.

Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century. 

All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?

So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link. 

Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.

Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong.* If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember*. I will not let  go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.
> 
> This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.





james bond said:


> Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?




_*Are you looking in the mirror ...*_

the only people in disagreement without verification are yourself and the creationist ... one can only guess what you see when you look.





james bond said:


> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.



it didn't exist in the first  and no, the Atmosphere on Earth is not the same as throughout the universe.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong.* If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember*. I will not let  go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.
> 
> This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
Click to expand...

'You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.' Really?
-Test 1. Moses lived to 800 years old. Average human lifespan is around 80 now. 800 years old is not just unlikely but impossible. Excuse: Humans lived longer in acient times.Rebuttal: Show me any ancient human corps that reached that age. Counter rebuttal: science can't see living age, answer: Yes it can, they can use tooth email. excuse: yes but not enough ancient tooth have been found. my reply: posted a number of grave sites. Reply: None
Test 2. 8 bronze age ppl can build an ark:Because of its extreme length and wood construction, _Wyoming_ tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). _Wyoming_ had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands. *Largest wooden ship ever build in the real world. *No pumps in the bronze age either, and the ark was supposed to be bigger making it even more impossible.
Test 3: 8 ppl can feed, take care of 10000 plus animals. London Zoo has 750 employees for 17480 animals.
Logical fallacy: Marsupials live exclusively in Australia: How did they get there after the great flood.
The problem is not that I don't give any tests, the problem is that you don't accept them as tests. These are not little inconsistensies. These are huge gaping holes in your logic.
I'll show you more tests if you want to. But I'm guessing you, like aways. Will blame it on your secular scientist. Talk about circular reasoning.you say: "The bible is always right",I'll reply: "no it isn't because of these facts",you will answer: " the facts are a conspiracy by secular scientist",Ill ask: " got any proof",your reply: " of course I do, it isn't consistent with whats's in the bible"


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your first paragraph is a deflection and your second paragraph is an evasion, since you didn't give ANY source just the old argument you're wrong.* If the chronoligy is not true give me examples remember*. I will not let  go of this subject nore will I continue adressing your post until you can offer more then that. It's not a circular argument since I'm not talking about dating. I'm talking about the order fossils appear physicaly. I know that's an ankward fact to you but there it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.
> 
> This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
Click to expand...

I also want to talk about the bible a bit. First of the text you say is the bible, is at best a translation of a translation of a translation. It went from Biblical Hebrew or Arameic into Athic Greek,into Latin,into English. I'm bilingual and I can attest that translating from 1 language to another 1 isn't easy,some words and idioms don't translate all that well. And I'm talking about 2 alive modern languages. The time gap between the original text and the actual putting togheter of the bible. Garantues that stuff will be lost in translation. Siting it as proof for modern scientific concepts is false. The prose is interpretal. I'll illustrate using your earth is flat argument.



"Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth… reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” Only with a flat Earth could a tall tree be visible from "the Earth's farthest bounds" — this is impossible on a spherical earth.


Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"
Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."

Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the *four corners* of the earth."
Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on *four corners* of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."
The fact is that all these statements imply or could be construed as supporting a flat Earth And it's  a TEST of the ambigious nature of the bible texts.
And the fact that there is no way to really know what the original text said makes the exercise in itself  highly suspect to begin with.


----------



## Vandalshandle

There is a guy who preaches Creationism on the corner of Market and New Montgomery in San Francisco, and he is funded by taxpayer dollars. I know that he does not work, so he probably is on some sort of public assistance. He is very interesting, especially when he starts screaming about everyone going to hell. He has explained that god buried all the fossils just to confuse us. Some sort of pop quiz, I guess.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.
> 
> This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*Are you looking in the mirror ...*_
> 
> the only people in disagreement without verification are yourself and the creationist ... one can only guess what you see when you look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it didn't exist in the first  and no, the Atmosphere on Earth is not the same as throughout the universe.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What do I see when I look in the mirror?  *I see God, who has created me in his own image.*

So, how many days now have you gone without any evidence or verification of evolution or atheism?  *The answer is since the beginning of time, which encompasses somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years give or take.
*
I'm still waiting for the atheism book that has truth in it and science backs it up.  Now, that would take billions and billions of years for it to happen.

What about Noah's Flood, all the animals, including the dinosaurs?  They'll be all there at the Ark Encounter grand opening in Kentucky, July 7th.  People will be amazed and will see first hand how all of it happened.

Where is the atheist theme park?  Where are the atheists who go door-to-door to explain atheism?  There ain't none as there is nothing interesting to talk about.  Too *booring*.  That's when it is so boring that people start to boo.

If this stuff wasn't true, then people would not go to the Ark Encounter and the Bible would not have become the all-time best selling book.

Are you eating GMO food like those atheist scientists tell you?  Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that GMO food is perfectly safe.  Let me know if you develop any allergies.  Some of these allergies can cause cancer, shorten your life, and kill you.  OTOH creation scientists recommend non-GMO foods and try to eat organic when possible.  Organic is the way we used to grow all food.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha. Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*Are you looking in the mirror ...*_
> 
> the only people in disagreement without verification are yourself and the creationist ... one can only guess what you see when you look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it didn't exist in the first  and no, the Atmosphere on Earth is not the same as throughout the universe.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do I see when I look in the mirror?  *I see God, who has created me in his own image.*
> 
> So, how many days now have you gone without any evidence or verification of evolution or atheism?  *The answer is since the beginning of time, which encompasses somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years give or take.
> *
> I'm still waiting for the atheism book that has truth in it and science backs it up.  Now, that would take billions and billions of years for it to happen.
> 
> What about Noah's Flood, all the animals, including the dinosaurs?  They'll be all there at the Ark Encounter grand opening in Kentucky, July 7th.  People will be amazed and will see first hand how all of it happened.
> 
> Where is the atheist theme park?  Where are the atheists who go door-to-door to explain atheism?  There ain't none as there is nothing interesting to talk about.  Too *booring*.  That's when it is so boring that people start to boo.
> 
> If this stuff wasn't true, then people would not go to the Ark Encounter and the Bible would not have become the all-time best selling book.
> 
> Are you eating GMO food like those atheist scientists tell you?  Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that GMO food is perfectly safe.  Let me know if you develop any allergies.  Some of these allergies can cause cancer, shorten your life, and kill you.  OTOH creation scientists recommend non-GMO foods and try to eat organic when possible.  Organic is the way we used to grow all food.
Click to expand...

*1. The universal genetic code*.  All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.



*2. The fossil record.*  The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.



*3. Genetic commonalities.*  Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.  And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.



*4. Common traits in embryos.*  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum _Chordata_.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. 

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos.  These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum _Chordata_descended from a common ancestor.



*5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.*  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic.  This is natural selection in action.  The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I think I know more than you about evolution.  All of that which you stated for chronological layers are not facts.  They're claims by secular scientists due to their beliefs that the earth is old and radiometric dating, discovered by little known Clair Patterson, who gave it to them in 1956 for the age of the earth.  The arguments we are having are nothing new, but go back to 1795 and the 1800s.  I have been giving you examples all this time, such as the where the names come from for the different layers, catastrophism (which is being usurped by the secular scientists now) vs uniformitarianism, the formation of the Cliffs of Dover, the Australian land formation, ocean floor sediment, coelacanth and dinosaurs, the moon, moon rocks, and so on, and yet you do not see.  The last couple of posts, I gave you experimental evidence.  That is the ultimate.  I gave you Mt. St. Helens which demonstrates the sedimentary layers.  Go read and watch those videos.  Where is the evolutionists experimental evidence for chronological layers?  There is none.  You need to have an open mind.  It's stuck in the chronology mud of the evolutionists.
> 
> This isn't about who won the debate, which I have clearly won, but to compare the evidence of the two sides and judge for yourself.  Maybe I went a little further than most by reading some of the Bible.  I used to think like you until the early 2000s. but evolution did not answer the questions people had and I had.  It was around 2011 that the evo stuff really hit the fan in the media.  Actually, the battle started up again in 1925 with the Scopes trial, books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the 60s, and more legal trials of creation vs evolution in 1980-90.  When comparing the two scientific evidence, it was nolo contendere for creation.  The battle for our young peoples minds will continue.  It really isn't about religion, but science.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.' Really?
> -Test 1. Moses lived to 800 years old. Average human lifespan is around 80 now. 800 years old is not just unlikely but impossible. Excuse: Humans lived longer in acient times.Rebuttal: Show me any ancient human corps that reached that age. Counter rebuttal: science can't see living age, answer: Yes it can, they can use tooth email. excuse: yes but not enough ancient tooth have been found. my reply: posted a number of grave sites. Reply: None
> Test 2. 8 bronze age ppl can build an ark:Because of its extreme length and wood construction, _Wyoming_ tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). _Wyoming_ had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands. *Largest wooden ship ever build in the real world. *No pumps in the bronze age either, and the ark was supposed to be bigger making it even more impossible.
> Test 3: 8 ppl can feed, take care of 10000 plus animals. London Zoo has 750 employees for 17480 animals.
> Logical fallacy: Marsupials live exclusively in Australia: How did they get there after the great flood.
> The problem is not that I don't give any tests, the problem is that you don't accept them as tests. These are not little inconsistensies. These are huge gaping holes in your logic.
> I'll show you more tests if you want to. But I'm guessing you, like aways. Will blame it on your secular scientist. Talk about circular reasoning.you say: "The bible is always right",I'll reply: "no it isn't because of these facts",you will answer: " the facts are a conspiracy by secular scientist",Ill ask: " got any proof",your reply: " of course I do, it isn't consistent with whats's in the bible"
Click to expand...


The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. * It's YOU.  *This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim.  Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it.  I pointed out the Piltdown Man.  A whole generation believed it was the missing link.  You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts.  What about the Nebraska Man?  It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.

1, 2 and 3.  Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years.  The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time.  We already discussed this.  They were more perfect.  They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood.  Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth?  There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years.  This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record.  You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?

Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood?  I hope it does.  Would be disappointed if it did not address this.  Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark.  He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.

We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence.  You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution.  You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence.  You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence.  You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule.  You believe mutation has positive benefits.  You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover.  You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form.  Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions.  There is not one shred of evidence.  You believe that GMO crops are good.  I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one.  Why is that?  Cause hybrids were naturally produced.  It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred.  It does not happen in the wild.  Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe.  You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand.  This isn't true.  A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge.  Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe.  There are no multiverses.  One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems.  Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality.  Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime.  You believe in mutidimensions.  There is a basic saying,* "If it stinks, it's chemistry.  If it crawls, it's biology.  If it doesn't work, it's physics."  I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution."  *It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true.  It's true.  The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.


----------



## james bond

*


			
				forkup said:
			
		


			1. The universal genetic code
		
Click to expand...

*


			
				forkup said:
			
		

> .  All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The fossil record.*  The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
> 
> Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.
> 
> 
> 
> *3. Genetic commonalities.*  Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.  And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
> 
> 
> 
> *4. Common traits in embryos.*  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum _Chordata_.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
> 
> In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos.  These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum _Chordata_descended from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.*  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.
> 
> When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic.  This is natural selection in action.  The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
> 
> These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
> I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.



Nice copy and paste job.  Please explain what you mean in your own words, so I know you understand it, and I'll be glad to rebut all your points, but here's a sample.

 1.  I've been talking about this since I'm blue in the face.  Show me how the single-cell started.  The basic building block of the protein molecule cannot be created outside the cell.

 2.  I've already talked about the fossil record.  I anticipated how you were going to use it.  We're going to come to different conclusions.  I gave you testable evidence of how stratification works with catastrophism and how the top layer could be older than the bottom layer.  Also, presented Mt. St. Helens as the recent evidence in nature.  It nicely follows what the experiment demonstrated.  It took you this long to come around to it.

 3.  Just because there are genetic commonalities does not mean they're the same.

 4.  Please explain where you are going with this.

 5.  Ho hum.  That's natural selection and Alfred Russel Wallace, creation scientists and I have demonstrated this is part of creation science.  You see how your copy and paste job tries to take credit for it?  Has evolution created bacteria?  Nope.  Even the most simplest bacterium is complex.  Ha ha.  Please explain how this is strictly evolution.  Complexity and beauty shows intelligent design and God.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked one simple thing, no deflections, no evasions, no avoiding the subject. *If the cronology is wrong give me examples....* Now you are avoiding, deflecting, evading and blustering. List of fossil sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of known fossil sites. Like I said you can leave the dating alone, altough not every site here is dated using radiometric dating. You have a hypothesis, namely all KINDS lived togheter, so it's logical that all KINDS will be found togheter. Proof it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.' Really?
> -Test 1. Moses lived to 800 years old. Average human lifespan is around 80 now. 800 years old is not just unlikely but impossible. Excuse: Humans lived longer in acient times.Rebuttal: Show me any ancient human corps that reached that age. Counter rebuttal: science can't see living age, answer: Yes it can, they can use tooth email. excuse: yes but not enough ancient tooth have been found. my reply: posted a number of grave sites. Reply: None
> Test 2. 8 bronze age ppl can build an ark:Because of its extreme length and wood construction, _Wyoming_ tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). _Wyoming_ had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands. *Largest wooden ship ever build in the real world. *No pumps in the bronze age either, and the ark was supposed to be bigger making it even more impossible.
> Test 3: 8 ppl can feed, take care of 10000 plus animals. London Zoo has 750 employees for 17480 animals.
> Logical fallacy: Marsupials live exclusively in Australia: How did they get there after the great flood.
> The problem is not that I don't give any tests, the problem is that you don't accept them as tests. These are not little inconsistensies. These are huge gaping holes in your logic.
> I'll show you more tests if you want to. But I'm guessing you, like aways. Will blame it on your secular scientist. Talk about circular reasoning.you say: "The bible is always right",I'll reply: "no it isn't because of these facts",you will answer: " the facts are a conspiracy by secular scientist",Ill ask: " got any proof",your reply: " of course I do, it isn't consistent with whats's in the bible"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. * It's YOU.  *This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim.  Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it.  I pointed out the Piltdown Man.  A whole generation believed it was the missing link.  You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts.  What about the Nebraska Man?  It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.
> 
> 1, 2 and 3.  Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years.  The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time.  We already discussed this.  They were more perfect.  They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood.  Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth?  There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years.  This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record.  You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.
> 
> Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?
> 
> Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood?  I hope it does.  Would be disappointed if it did not address this.  Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark.  He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.
> 
> We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence.  You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution.  You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence.  You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence.  You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule.  You believe mutation has positive benefits.  You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover.  You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form.  Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions.  There is not one shred of evidence.  You believe that GMO crops are good.  I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one.  Why is that?  Cause hybrids were naturally produced.  It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred.  It does not happen in the wild.  Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe.  You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand.  This isn't true.  A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge.  Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe.  There are no multiverses.  One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems.  Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality.  Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime.  You believe in mutidimensions.  There is a basic saying,* "If it stinks, it's chemistry.  If it crawls, it's biology.  If it doesn't work, it's physics."  I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution."  *It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true.  It's true.  The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.
Click to expand...

Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The universal genetic code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The fossil record.*  The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
> 
> Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.
> 
> 
> 
> *3. Genetic commonalities.*  Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.  And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
> 
> 
> 
> *4. Common traits in embryos.*  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum _Chordata_.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
> 
> In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos.  These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum _Chordata_descended from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.*  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.
> 
> When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic.  This is natural selection in action.  The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
> 
> These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
> I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice copy and paste job.  Please explain what you mean in your own words, so I know you understand it, and I'll be glad to rebut all your points.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean you never copy pasted anything before in the course of this discussion? Be carefull how you answer that.
I have used 2,3 and 5 at lenght already. The first means that since you claim kinds are unrelated. It is bizarre that all genetic code is written in the same language. Furthermore the genetic code gives a benchmark to estimate when different species diverged. Wich then can be independidly confirmed by finding rocks of approxmaly the same age. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This beiing a prime example. These specimens where found due to a targeted search using genetics to pinpoint where this creature should be found.
Four is just the weird fact. That early stage embryos actually go to all stages of evolution in an accelerated rate as they develop.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The universal genetic code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The fossil record.*  The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
> 
> Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.
> 
> 
> 
> *3. Genetic commonalities.*  Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.  And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
> 
> 
> 
> *4. Common traits in embryos.*  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum _Chordata_.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
> 
> In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos.  These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum _Chordata_descended from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.*  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.
> 
> When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic.  This is natural selection in action.  The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
> 
> These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
> I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice copy and paste job.  Please explain what you mean in your own words, so I know you understand it, and I'll be glad to rebut all your points, but here's a sample.
> 
> 1.  I've been talking about this since I'm blue in the face.  Show me how the single-cell started.  The basic building block of the protein molecule cannot be created outside the cell.
> 
> 2.  I've already talked about the fossil record.  I anticipated how you were going to use it.  We're going to come to different conclusions.  I gave you testable evidence of how stratification works with catastrophism and how the top layer could be older than the bottom layer.  Also, presented Mt. St. Helens as the recent evidence in nature.  It nicely follows what the experiment demonstrated.  It took you this long to come around to it.
> 
> 3.  Just because there are genetic commonalities does not mean they're the same.
> 
> 4.  Please explain where you are going with this.
> 
> 5.  Ho hum.  That's natural selection and Alfred Russel Wallace, creation scientists and I have demonstrated this is part of creation science.  You see how your copy and paste job tries to take credit for it?  Has evolution created bacteria?  Nope.  Even the most simplest bacterium is complex.  Ha ha.  Please explain how this is strictly evolution.  Complexity and beauty shows intelligent design and God.
Click to expand...

This is again a copy and past job. But it does nicely show you how Creationist try to selectivly use data to try and discredit evolution.
The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.

The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?

If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.

Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the _non-random_forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be _billions_ of trials taking place _simultaneously_ as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

The Probability of Life | Evolution FAQ, this second link explains it in more detail Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
the numbers stated are of since apperently the copy and pasting didn't allow a correct representation it for instance it's nt 10390 but 10 to the power 390


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The universal genetic code
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The fossil record.*  The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
> 
> Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.
> 
> 
> 
> *3. Genetic commonalities.*  Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.  And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
> 
> 
> 
> *4. Common traits in embryos.*  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum _Chordata_.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
> 
> In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos.  These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum _Chordata_descended from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.*  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.
> 
> When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic.  This is natural selection in action.  The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
> 
> These are a few proofs of evolution. All is been tested and confirmed by multiple sources. There is nothing in here you have a real alternative explanation for except evolution happens. So when you say there is no verification of evolution. You should say there is no verification I'll accept.
> I wasn't aware that having a themepark makes something more credible. Would you allow theme parks in Darwin. You have to admit having a major town named after you, gives a fair amount of credibility too lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice copy and paste job.  Please explain what you mean in your own words, so I know you understand it, and I'll be glad to rebut all your points, but here's a sample.
> 
> 1.  I've been talking about this since I'm blue in the face.  Show me how the single-cell started.  The basic building block of the protein molecule cannot be created outside the cell.
> 
> 2.  I've already talked about the fossil record.  I anticipated how you were going to use it.  We're going to come to different conclusions.  I gave you testable evidence of how stratification works with catastrophism and how the top layer could be older than the bottom layer.  Also, presented Mt. St. Helens as the recent evidence in nature.  It nicely follows what the experiment demonstrated.  It took you this long to come around to it.
> 
> 3.  Just because there are genetic commonalities does not mean they're the same.
> 
> 4.  Please explain where you are going with this.
> 
> 5.  Ho hum.  That's natural selection and Alfred Russel Wallace, creation scientists and I have demonstrated this is part of creation science.  You see how your copy and paste job tries to take credit for it?  Has evolution created bacteria?  Nope.  Even the most simplest bacterium is complex.  Ha ha.  Please explain how this is strictly evolution.  Complexity and beauty shows intelligent design and God.
Click to expand...

Wallace continued his scientific work in parallel with his social commentary. In 1880, he published _Island Life_ as a sequel to _The Geographic Distribution of Animals_. In November 1886, Wallace began a ten-month trip to the United States to give a series of popular lectures. Most of the lectures were on Darwinism (evolution through natural selection).* Weird creasionist.*


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I already gave them to you several times.  The fossil record can be used to argue for both sides.  However, is the record correct if stratification happens from top-down and not bottom-up?  I think you do not have the perspicacity to let go of your presuppositions about evolution and then compare the two arguments side-by-side.  The notion that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more than religious mysticism is blatantly false, and I think I have more than adequately shown that.  Any rational person would be able to pull out your basic arguments and extract out my basic arguments and compare them side-by-side.
> 
> This, in lieu of, not knowing about the Bible.  While the Bible is an important document that supplements creation science, the intent is to extract the truth and not present something used to convert someone whether they be atheist or another religion.  Secular scientists have their own "truth" theories based on their own scientists and celebrities such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and so on.  With the Bible, the creationists have God on their side.  My intention was not to present a religious argument, but a scientific one and I think I've did that.
> 
> In the end, I presented an experimental and testable, as well as a natural one as evidence.  I also presented testable evidence with the atomic clocks and spacetime.  I presented testable evidence of electromagnetic propulsion to be used in traveling at the speed of light.  I gave evidence for the distance between the earth and the moon and how one can tell how old the earth is.  I showed that one cannot measure with any accuracy the distance to the nearest sun (star) in another galaxy.  I agreed that one can map the positions of stars, moon, and other planets by knowing the date.  I presented documented evidence that the layers of the earth are based on location and not time.
> 
> I presented a logical argument for the existence of a Creator or God with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other logic arguments.  I presented historical truths about the hidden cultural artifacts showing dinosaurs were called dragons before the word "dinosaur" was coined.  I presented the testability of natural selection and genetics which are part of both creation and evolution sciences.  Evolutionists try to claim it as their own and mislead people into thinking that is what evolution is.  I've presented evidence that creation scientists have been shut out of the scientific establishment by not accepting any of the arguments of creation scientists.  I've pointed out that this is getting only one side of the story.  I gave evidence that evolution is driven by money or grants given to those scientists that find evidence for evolution, no matter how misplaced it could be.  I've pointed out that the media tries to use evolutionary ideas in their articles by pointing out the chronology of evolution every chance they get.  I've pointed out that all of this ToE is wrong.  If it was true, then everyone would not have to be told of an old earth over and over.  They would just know it as fact.
> 
> In addition to this, I've pointed out the fallacies in the evolutionists arguments with their radiometric dating, ideas that things like a macro-change in species could happen by chance in nature given enough time.  We didn't get into that, but that is called mutation.  Mutation is generally negative or neutral.  It does not produce positive traits for a faster, stronger, and better species.  This has been documented in scientific tests, observations, and experiments.
> 
> I've shown that atheist scientists like Carl Sagan was wrong with their theories on stuff of like (see Miller-Uray experiment).  I've stated that evolutionists cannot and have not created any forms of life -- even the basic building block of a protein molecule (can only be created "within" a cell.  I've pointed out and argued about beauty and complexity cannot come from evolution, but from creation or an intelligent designer.  I've presented that parsimony shows that the creation side rules all.
> 
> All of the denial of the above is what I would call being brainwashed, forkup.  I've also pointed out that we all will find out in the end which one of us is right and spoke the truth.  I mentioned the existence of consciousness at the near-death stage and what happens.  Beyond that, actual death, is not known and cannot possibly be known.  That is what God said in the Bible even before we got to that stage with neurology and the medical sciences.  Again, he who laughs last, laughs best, Mr. Forkup.  I will be laughing loud and hearty when your time is up.  If I am right, then you will clearly hear.  If you and evolutionists are right, all that evolution and billions of years ends up with a relatively short life and people saying, "Is that all there is?"  No judgment.  No consequences.  Just loss of consciousness and death.  Ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.' Really?
> -Test 1. Moses lived to 800 years old. Average human lifespan is around 80 now. 800 years old is not just unlikely but impossible. Excuse: Humans lived longer in acient times.Rebuttal: Show me any ancient human corps that reached that age. Counter rebuttal: science can't see living age, answer: Yes it can, they can use tooth email. excuse: yes but not enough ancient tooth have been found. my reply: posted a number of grave sites. Reply: None
> Test 2. 8 bronze age ppl can build an ark:Because of its extreme length and wood construction, _Wyoming_ tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). _Wyoming_ had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands. *Largest wooden ship ever build in the real world. *No pumps in the bronze age either, and the ark was supposed to be bigger making it even more impossible.
> Test 3: 8 ppl can feed, take care of 10000 plus animals. London Zoo has 750 employees for 17480 animals.
> Logical fallacy: Marsupials live exclusively in Australia: How did they get there after the great flood.
> The problem is not that I don't give any tests, the problem is that you don't accept them as tests. These are not little inconsistensies. These are huge gaping holes in your logic.
> I'll show you more tests if you want to. But I'm guessing you, like aways. Will blame it on your secular scientist. Talk about circular reasoning.you say: "The bible is always right",I'll reply: "no it isn't because of these facts",you will answer: " the facts are a conspiracy by secular scientist",Ill ask: " got any proof",your reply: " of course I do, it isn't consistent with whats's in the bible"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. * It's YOU.  *This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim.  Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it.  I pointed out the Piltdown Man.  A whole generation believed it was the missing link.  You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts.  What about the Nebraska Man?  It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.
> 
> 1, 2 and 3.  Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years.  The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time.  We already discussed this.  They were more perfect.  They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood.  Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth?  There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years.  This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record.  You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.
> 
> Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?
> 
> Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood?  I hope it does.  Would be disappointed if it did not address this.  Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark.  He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.
> 
> We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence.  You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution.  You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence.  You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence.  You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule.  You believe mutation has positive benefits.  You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover.  You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form.  Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions.  There is not one shred of evidence.  You believe that GMO crops are good.  I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one.  Why is that?  Cause hybrids were naturally produced.  It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred.  It does not happen in the wild.  Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe.  You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand.  This isn't true.  A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge.  Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe.  There are no multiverses.  One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems.  Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality.  Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime.  You believe in mutidimensions.  There is a basic saying,* "If it stinks, it's chemistry.  If it crawls, it's biology.  If it doesn't work, it's physics."  I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution."  *It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true.  It's true.  The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.
Click to expand...


Again, you do not reply to what was said.  All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion.  It's mind-numbing boring now.  I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you.  It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.  That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too.  You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God.  Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.

Let's say we toss two coins.  If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win.  If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win.  That's a simple experiment.  Now increase the number of coins to four.  Now fifty coins.  It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won.  Now let's take parts of an airplane.  Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts.  We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win.  It never forms a plane after a thousand tries.  We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible.  The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place.  You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together.  This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together.  Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together.  Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer.  Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible.  Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it.  Not evolution.  Ha ha.   

ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something.  Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory.  It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> . It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.



that indeed is the cornerstone of creationism ....




james bond said:


> Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.










.









james bond said:


> Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.



there is only one known example of life so far recorded in the visible universe, all others are the example of the moonscape to the left, the random chance of Bonds example is in fact a sea of intangible conformity of meaningless debree, only in the single example is there true complexity that is not a constant unchanging form of design as an automobile but an everchanging and adapting process that itself is the reason for its existence as well as its origin - evolution. that has a Spiritual foundation.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown exactly zero testable theories. You have shown myth, filosofy, theoligy, hell you even try to site the Loch Ness monster as proof. The only fault you have shown with radiometric dating is that it comes out with dates you don't agree with. You haven't adressed genetic similarities, PROVEN, TESTABLE simularities, you haven't explained cosmic distances and how we see light from far of places, exept saying somehow science forgot to take spacetime into account. You somehow try to admit survival of the fittest, but don't accept it's logical conclusion. You can't explain away the simple physical impossibility of 8 ppl building and manning the biggest wooden boat ever conceived, stocking it with enough food and fresh water to take care of what conservativly using creationist estimates 10000 plus animals for a full year. The fact that science makes mistakes is the strenght of science we are not married to our ideas.  You say Creationism is scientific and yet you offer nothing of proof. In the course of this discussion I have done extensive research on the diiferent claims made in creatonism. I found that even amongst yourselfs you guys can't even agree on what you guys disagree on. this guy for instance knows stratafication of species happens and then gives a completly bizar explanation  Like even in this post. Top bottom, bottem up, dated, sideways it matters not a single thing, the fact of the matter is something you still haven't shown any proof of. Unless you can come up with a way why stratafication would happen in the same order, excluding the same types of species all across the earth you lose. I have seen 3 different sets of semi-scientific flood events, all thouroghly debunked. I have shown you a creationist geoligist trying to create whirlpools that suck dinosaurs to the bottom. On and ON but you feel like you won? Guess it has to be nice to live in a world where facts take a backseat to your own beliefs but I don't roll that way. *Like I said I have asked now at least 6 times of you to come up with proof to something wich is a long standing pro evolution argument. An argument wich is easily testable. And since you always refer to secular scientist. This had to have been tested by your Creasionist scientist. You have come up with nothing. That is a fact. And believe me I let you of easy since I didn't make you argue dating.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.' Really?
> -Test 1. Moses lived to 800 years old. Average human lifespan is around 80 now. 800 years old is not just unlikely but impossible. Excuse: Humans lived longer in acient times.Rebuttal: Show me any ancient human corps that reached that age. Counter rebuttal: science can't see living age, answer: Yes it can, they can use tooth email. excuse: yes but not enough ancient tooth have been found. my reply: posted a number of grave sites. Reply: None
> Test 2. 8 bronze age ppl can build an ark:Because of its extreme length and wood construction, _Wyoming_ tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). _Wyoming_ had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands. *Largest wooden ship ever build in the real world. *No pumps in the bronze age either, and the ark was supposed to be bigger making it even more impossible.
> Test 3: 8 ppl can feed, take care of 10000 plus animals. London Zoo has 750 employees for 17480 animals.
> Logical fallacy: Marsupials live exclusively in Australia: How did they get there after the great flood.
> The problem is not that I don't give any tests, the problem is that you don't accept them as tests. These are not little inconsistensies. These are huge gaping holes in your logic.
> I'll show you more tests if you want to. But I'm guessing you, like aways. Will blame it on your secular scientist. Talk about circular reasoning.you say: "The bible is always right",I'll reply: "no it isn't because of these facts",you will answer: " the facts are a conspiracy by secular scientist",Ill ask: " got any proof",your reply: " of course I do, it isn't consistent with whats's in the bible"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. * It's YOU.  *This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim.  Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it.  I pointed out the Piltdown Man.  A whole generation believed it was the missing link.  You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts.  What about the Nebraska Man?  It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.
> 
> 1, 2 and 3.  Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years.  The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time.  We already discussed this.  They were more perfect.  They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood.  Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth?  There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years.  This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record.  You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.
> 
> Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?
> 
> Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood?  I hope it does.  Would be disappointed if it did not address this.  Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark.  He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.
> 
> We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence.  You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution.  You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence.  You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence.  You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule.  You believe mutation has positive benefits.  You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover.  You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form.  Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions.  There is not one shred of evidence.  You believe that GMO crops are good.  I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one.  Why is that?  Cause hybrids were naturally produced.  It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred.  It does not happen in the wild.  Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe.  You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand.  This isn't true.  A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge.  Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe.  There are no multiverses.  One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems.  Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality.  Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime.  You believe in mutidimensions.  There is a basic saying,* "If it stinks, it's chemistry.  If it crawls, it's biology.  If it doesn't work, it's physics."  I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution."  *It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true.  It's true.  The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you do not reply to what was said.  All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion.  It's mind-numbing boring now.  I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you.  It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.  That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too.  You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God.  Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.
> 
> Let's say we toss two coins.  If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win.  If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win.  That's a simple experiment.  Now increase the number of coins to four.  Now fifty coins.  It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won.  Now let's take parts of an airplane.  Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts.  We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win.  It never forms a plane after a thousand tries.  We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible.  The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place.  You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together.  This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together.  Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together.  Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer.  Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible.  Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it.  Not evolution.  Ha ha.
> 
> ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something.  Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory.  It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.
Click to expand...

Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.


----------



## hobelim

forkup said:


> And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.





Bingo!


Some people are more interested in being right even if they are wrong and don't care about the truth because they have confused faith with obstinate stupidity.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> . It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that indeed is the cornerstone of creationism ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer. Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible. Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it. Not evolution. Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is only one known example of life so far recorded in the visible universe, all others are the example of the moonscape to the left, the random chance of Bonds example is in fact a sea of intangible conformity of meaningless debree, only in the single example is there true complexity that is not a constant unchanging form of design as an automobile but an everchanging and adapting process that itself is the reason for its existence as well as its origin - evolution. that has a Spiritual foundation.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You know that saying that man would have invented God if He didn't exist?  I do not think that is the way it should have been stated.  It should be man would have invented atheism if God did exist.  The evidence is the so-called science of evolution.  It is the expression of free will and free will is what God gave us in His perfection.

If one compares the moon to the Earth in the images you provided, then we see God's great works.  The Earth and moon are complementary and the moon supports the Earth.  God created the heavens and earth (universe or all that is above and all that is below) and he made our planet the centerpiece and the moon to help keep it in place.  My evidence continues with how atheists try and make the vastness beyond the Earth as being greater than the Earth, i.e. it has alien life, somewhere else is life and intelligent life.  They want to colonize Mars.  It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth.  Take a deep breath and see what God is cooking.  So beautiful and complex.  It's wonderful.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Are you looking in the mirror and talking about yourself?  You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.  Radiometric dating comes out with dates many do not agree with.  Only the secular scientists who agree with each other.  If it does not fall within their preconceived time ranges of ToE, then it is considered to be in error.  The whole dating of moon rocks should be tossed out, but only the ones which measured billions of years were kept.  How do you explain when they date something which they know such as rocks from a volcanic eruption that just occurred, it gives times of milions of years?.  You probably do not know why they only radiometric test certain items.  Please explain radiometric dating and which dates are valid and why this is so.  I'm still waiting for your dating of one moon rock.
> 
> I gave you Piltdown Man as the fakery that the evolutionists tried to pull.  It mislead a generation.  Then you gave me Lucy whose one knee was found about 1.5 miles away and much deeper in the ground that the rest of Lucy.  It's not part of Lucy.  More fakery.  You had to STFU as you had no reply to it.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of lightyears to the nearest star using astronomy when you did not take into account spacetime.  And I didn't mention the Loch Ness monster, but our own Champ.  I provided the links to all of the these.  You provided only a few links and they weren't convincing.  I've got thousands of eyewitnesses to Champ while your side has no one who has seen any evolution actually occur.  Birds did not descend from dinosaurs.  What happened to the Archaeopteryx?  Where is the evidence to show birds descended from dinosaurs when OSU has shown that the lungs and skeletal structure of birds are different from dinosaurs.  That makes it an impossible descent.  Even your apes to man infograph has no testable proof.  How can you be so naive and stubborn?
> 
> Facts do not take a backseat.  You do not even know what the facts are.  You are a huge joke.  You are simply hilarious.  Both sides have the same facts.  It's the interpretation of these facts is what's different.  Any intelligent person knows this.  You can't even get past first base trying to show how knowledgeable you are on evolution.  Lol.
> 
> I'm sick of explaining over and over to a simpleton.  So one last time, here is more proof of creation in addition to what I have already summarized.  It proves to all these people here that you did not read the links I provided.  Science backs up the Bible even though it is not a science book.  How many times did I say to you lol?  It just goes in one ear and out the other because of your preconceived ideas.
> 
> The Bible is the world's best selling book of all time at five billion copies.  How stupid are those atheists who do not know this and have not read the Bible.  We've seen those snide comments in this thread, haven't we?  Atheists are usually wrong.  Ha ha.
> 
> Cosmology/Astronomy
> Time had a beginning.  The universe had a beginning.  Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe.  Haven't you heard, "All that is and all that there will be."  The steady state theory of atheist science was shown to be pseudoscience.  The universe was created from the invisible or supernatural.  The dimensions of the universe were created.  The universe is expanding, but creation scientists theorize it has an edge, i.e. there are limits to it and it does not forever keep expanding.  The universe is winding down and will "wear out."  The second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death" or maximum entropy.  Genesis provides the correct order of creation.  The numbers of stars exceed a billion.  Stated from ancient times when one can only count 3000 stars.  Every star is different.  Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.  Light is in motion.  The Earth is controlled by the heavens.  Earth is a sphere.  There goes some atheist claims that creationists think the earth is flat lol.  At any time, there is day and night on Earth.  Earth is suspended in space.  The physical laws are constant.
> 
> Earth Sciences
> Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described from Pangaea to today.  The water cycle is described.  Valleys exist at the bottom of the sea.  Vents exist at the bottom of the sea.  It describes the ocean currents in the sea.  Air has weight.  Winds blow in circular paths.
> 
> Biology
> The chemical nature of human life.  Life of creatures in in the blood.  The nature of infectious diseases.  Importance of sanitation to health.
> 
> Science in the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?
> 
> All of the above has been discovered by science and it backs up what the Bible stated from the 2nd to the 4th century.
> 
> All of the above stated way before evolution.  What science has backed up the ToE?  When did the ToE start?
> 
> So, you can add this to all of the summations I made to you in my three or four summary posts.  Where is your ToE summary?  All you did was foolishly ask six times for the evidence when it was given to you had you clicked and read the link.
> 
> Now where is the proof for evolution?  You probably can't explain evolution.  How many copies did Darwin's book sell?  What is the complete title of his book?  I doubt you know any of this.  Ha ha.
> 
> Is your handle forkup because you continue to forkup.
> 
> 
> 
> 'You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.' Really?
> -Test 1. Moses lived to 800 years old. Average human lifespan is around 80 now. 800 years old is not just unlikely but impossible. Excuse: Humans lived longer in acient times.Rebuttal: Show me any ancient human corps that reached that age. Counter rebuttal: science can't see living age, answer: Yes it can, they can use tooth email. excuse: yes but not enough ancient tooth have been found. my reply: posted a number of grave sites. Reply: None
> Test 2. 8 bronze age ppl can build an ark:Because of its extreme length and wood construction, _Wyoming_ tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). _Wyoming_ had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands. *Largest wooden ship ever build in the real world. *No pumps in the bronze age either, and the ark was supposed to be bigger making it even more impossible.
> Test 3: 8 ppl can feed, take care of 10000 plus animals. London Zoo has 750 employees for 17480 animals.
> Logical fallacy: Marsupials live exclusively in Australia: How did they get there after the great flood.
> The problem is not that I don't give any tests, the problem is that you don't accept them as tests. These are not little inconsistensies. These are huge gaping holes in your logic.
> I'll show you more tests if you want to. But I'm guessing you, like aways. Will blame it on your secular scientist. Talk about circular reasoning.you say: "The bible is always right",I'll reply: "no it isn't because of these facts",you will answer: " the facts are a conspiracy by secular scientist",Ill ask: " got any proof",your reply: " of course I do, it isn't consistent with whats's in the bible"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. * It's YOU.  *This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim.  Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it.  I pointed out the Piltdown Man.  A whole generation believed it was the missing link.  You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts.  What about the Nebraska Man?  It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.
> 
> 1, 2 and 3.  Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years.  The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time.  We already discussed this.  They were more perfect.  They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood.  Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth?  There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years.  This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record.  You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.
> 
> Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?
> 
> Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood?  I hope it does.  Would be disappointed if it did not address this.  Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark.  He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.
> 
> We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence.  You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution.  You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence.  You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence.  You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule.  You believe mutation has positive benefits.  You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover.  You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form.  Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions.  There is not one shred of evidence.  You believe that GMO crops are good.  I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one.  Why is that?  Cause hybrids were naturally produced.  It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred.  It does not happen in the wild.  Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe.  You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand.  This isn't true.  A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge.  Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe.  There are no multiverses.  One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems.  Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality.  Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime.  You believe in mutidimensions.  There is a basic saying,* "If it stinks, it's chemistry.  If it crawls, it's biology.  If it doesn't work, it's physics."  I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution."  *It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true.  It's true.  The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you do not reply to what was said.  All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion.  It's mind-numbing boring now.  I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you.  It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.  That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too.  You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God.  Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.
> 
> Let's say we toss two coins.  If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win.  If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win.  That's a simple experiment.  Now increase the number of coins to four.  Now fifty coins.  It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won.  Now let's take parts of an airplane.  Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts.  We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win.  It never forms a plane after a thousand tries.  We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible.  The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place.  You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together.  This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together.  Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together.  Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer.  Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible.  Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it.  Not evolution.  Ha ha.
> 
> ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something.  Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory.  It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.
Click to expand...


You're probably correct in my having trouble reading *your posts*.  Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule?  Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you.  If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere.  Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."?  You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created.  Not even a protein molecule.  It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane.  It's not about a "bolt" or lightening.  The bucket is just and empty vessel.  It does not matter if you have billions of buckets.  Nothing begats nothing.  So you're wrong there.  What we have are amino acids or the building blocks.  From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life.  Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.

I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source.  Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution.  Atheists are usually wrong.  I do care about science and have an aptitude for it.  Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds.  It should answer all you doubts and questions.  I did not put up an argument against it.  Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that.  We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time.  It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection.  Facts aren't just under evolution.  We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood.  There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts.  The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows.  For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it.  Your evidence validates my points.  And life did not evolve from proteins.  Mature, perfect adult life was created.  Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell.  We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions.  The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell.  Another miracle of life provided by God.  Did you understand this?  The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying?  Did you understand what you are saying?  Did you understand your copy and paste job?

Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science.  Creation *IS* science and science ends up backing it up.  The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.


----------



## james bond

hobelim said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> 
> Some people are more interested in being right even if they are wrong and don't care about the truth because they have confused faith with obstinate stupidity.
Click to expand...


An ad hominem attack does not provide a valid argument.  So already you lost.  One post and you have been extirpated.  Ha ha and good day.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.





james bond said:


> It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth.




_*- even though God gave him 120 years to do it ...*_


no, it was to be accomplished before Noah's death, christian and Noah did not fail the Almighty as did moses the heritic.

when either the last of either expires, the Triumph of Good vs Evil those remaining will be the Final Judgement - the parable of Noah.

the Judgement was made by the Almighty beforehand before it expired and humanity was given a second chance.


to bad for you Bond it is not between creationist and atheism but between the true faith against the deceptive bible, rendered by the Final Judgement.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'You have shown no experiments to test what you claim.' Really?
> -Test 1. Moses lived to 800 years old. Average human lifespan is around 80 now. 800 years old is not just unlikely but impossible. Excuse: Humans lived longer in acient times.Rebuttal: Show me any ancient human corps that reached that age. Counter rebuttal: science can't see living age, answer: Yes it can, they can use tooth email. excuse: yes but not enough ancient tooth have been found. my reply: posted a number of grave sites. Reply: None
> Test 2. 8 bronze age ppl can build an ark:Because of its extreme length and wood construction, _Wyoming_ tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). _Wyoming_ had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands. *Largest wooden ship ever build in the real world. *No pumps in the bronze age either, and the ark was supposed to be bigger making it even more impossible.
> Test 3: 8 ppl can feed, take care of 10000 plus animals. London Zoo has 750 employees for 17480 animals.
> Logical fallacy: Marsupials live exclusively in Australia: How did they get there after the great flood.
> The problem is not that I don't give any tests, the problem is that you don't accept them as tests. These are not little inconsistensies. These are huge gaping holes in your logic.
> I'll show you more tests if you want to. But I'm guessing you, like aways. Will blame it on your secular scientist. Talk about circular reasoning.you say: "The bible is always right",I'll reply: "no it isn't because of these facts",you will answer: " the facts are a conspiracy by secular scientist",Ill ask: " got any proof",your reply: " of course I do, it isn't consistent with whats's in the bible"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. * It's YOU.  *This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim.  Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it.  I pointed out the Piltdown Man.  A whole generation believed it was the missing link.  You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts.  What about the Nebraska Man?  It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.
> 
> 1, 2 and 3.  Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years.  The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time.  We already discussed this.  They were more perfect.  They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood.  Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth?  There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years.  This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record.  You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.
> 
> Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?
> 
> Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood?  I hope it does.  Would be disappointed if it did not address this.  Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark.  He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.
> 
> We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence.  You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution.  You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence.  You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence.  You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule.  You believe mutation has positive benefits.  You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover.  You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form.  Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions.  There is not one shred of evidence.  You believe that GMO crops are good.  I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one.  Why is that?  Cause hybrids were naturally produced.  It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred.  It does not happen in the wild.  Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe.  You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand.  This isn't true.  A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge.  Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe.  There are no multiverses.  One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems.  Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality.  Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime.  You believe in mutidimensions.  There is a basic saying,* "If it stinks, it's chemistry.  If it crawls, it's biology.  If it doesn't work, it's physics."  I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution."  *It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true.  It's true.  The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you do not reply to what was said.  All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion.  It's mind-numbing boring now.  I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you.  It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.  That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too.  You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God.  Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.
> 
> Let's say we toss two coins.  If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win.  If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win.  That's a simple experiment.  Now increase the number of coins to four.  Now fifty coins.  It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won.  Now let's take parts of an airplane.  Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts.  We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win.  It never forms a plane after a thousand tries.  We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible.  The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place.  You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together.  This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together.  Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together.  Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer.  Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible.  Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it.  Not evolution.  Ha ha.
> 
> ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something.  Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory.  It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably correct in my having trouble reading *your posts*.  Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule?  Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you.  If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere.  Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."?  You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created.  Not even a protein molecule.  It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane.  It's not about a "bolt" or lightening.  The bucket is just and empty vessel.  It does not matter if you have billions of buckets.  Nothing begats nothing.  So you're wrong there.  What we have are amino acids or the building blocks.  From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life.  Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.
> 
> I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source.  Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution.  Atheists are usually wrong.  I do care about science and have an aptitude for it.  Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds.  It should answer all you doubts and questions.  I did not put up an argument against it.  Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that.  We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time.  It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection.  Facts aren't just under evolution.  We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood.  There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts.  The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows.  For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it.  Your evidence validates my points.  And life did not evolve from proteins.  Mature, perfect adult life was created.  Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell.  We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions.  The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell.  Another miracle of life provided by God.  Did you understand this?  The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying?  Did you understand what you are saying?  Did you understand your copy and paste job?
> 
> Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science.  Creation *IS* science and science ends up backing it up.  The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.
Click to expand...

check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person who has shown no proof is just look in the mirror. * It's YOU.  *This is because science doesn't back up what the atheists claim.  Evolution is a lie that has been told so many times over and over that people believe it.  I pointed out the Piltdown Man.  A whole generation believed it was the missing link.  You still believe Lucy is evidence when I told you the facts.  What about the Nebraska Man?  It turned out to be a pig's tooth, not a human or even an ape's.
> 
> 1, 2 and 3.  Atheists are usually wrong and you're wrong about Adam and Eve's immediate ancestors not living for hundreds of years.  The environment and the universe were different then, so people could live a long time.  We already discussed this.  They were more perfect.  They were healthier than people after Noah's Flood.  Remember, I pointed out the people of Pompeii who had perfect teeth?  There is some recorded history of ancient people living around 300 years.  This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is in the historical record.  You're only spouting what the atheist scientists have told you.
> 
> Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?
> 
> Will the Ark Encounter have exhibits of human longevity before the global flood?  I hope it does.  Would be disappointed if it did not address this.  Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark.  He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.
> 
> We're just flitting from topic to topic which I have covered already and presented the evidence.  You have presented nothing and keep insisting on evolution.  You believe in aliens without one shred of evidence.  You believe in macroevolution without one shred of evidence.  You believe complex life can spring out of nothing or a primordial soup when your scientists have failed in creating the most basic of life, the protein molecule.  You believe mutation has positive benefits.  You think that lower levels of sedimentary rock contain older fossils than the upper levels without any proof whatsover.  You believe the Cliffs of Dover took millions of years to form.  Your so-called celeb scientists believe in multiverses, that the universe is primed for life, the universe can start from nothing. there are things such as dark matter and energy, God plays dice and other ridiculous notions.  There is not one shred of evidence.  You believe that GMO crops are good.  I was talking with a pot smoker and he said he would prefer to smoke a hybrid plant than a GMO one.  Why is that?  Cause hybrids were naturally produced.  It also goes to show that intelligent being had to interact to form these hybrid plants, even though they were interbred.  It does not happen in the wild.  Then your atheist scientists create a GMO version and try to pass it off as better and safe.  You believe the universe is expanding and will continue to expand.  This isn't true.  A peer-reviewed paper has shown that the universe has an edge.  Thus, there is a limit and end to the universe.  There are no multiverses.  One can't go back in time unless there is something else besides our present belief systems.  Atheist scientists think that exploration of quantum physics can help us achieve this and show muti-dimensional reality.  Yet, you do not understand the basics of the 4th dimension or spacetime.  You believe in mutidimensions.  There is a basic saying,* "If it stinks, it's chemistry.  If it crawls, it's biology.  If it doesn't work, it's physics."  I've added, "If it's wrong, it's evolution."  *It's no wonder you have not presented anything, but continue to believe that what I presented isn't true.  It's true.  The proof is in the pudding, but your evolution brain just cannot accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you do not reply to what was said.  All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion.  It's mind-numbing boring now.  I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you.  It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.  That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too.  You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God.  Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.
> 
> Let's say we toss two coins.  If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win.  If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win.  That's a simple experiment.  Now increase the number of coins to four.  Now fifty coins.  It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won.  Now let's take parts of an airplane.  Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts.  We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win.  It never forms a plane after a thousand tries.  We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible.  The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place.  You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together.  This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together.  Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together.  Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer.  Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible.  Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it.  Not evolution.  Ha ha.
> 
> ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something.  Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory.  It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably correct in my having trouble reading *your posts*.  Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule?  Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you.  If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere.  Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."?  You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created.  Not even a protein molecule.  It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane.  It's not about a "bolt" or lightening.  The bucket is just and empty vessel.  It does not matter if you have billions of buckets.  Nothing begats nothing.  So you're wrong there.  What we have are amino acids or the building blocks.  From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life.  Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.
> 
> I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source.  Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution.  Atheists are usually wrong.  I do care about science and have an aptitude for it.  Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds.  It should answer all you doubts and questions.  I did not put up an argument against it.  Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that.  We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time.  It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection.  Facts aren't just under evolution.  We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood.  There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts.  The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows.  For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it.  Your evidence validates my points.  And life did not evolve from proteins.  Mature, perfect adult life was created.  Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell.  We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions.  The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell.  Another miracle of life provided by God.  Did you understand this?  The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying?  Did you understand what you are saying?  Did you understand your copy and paste job?
> 
> Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science.  Creation *IS* science and science ends up backing it up.  The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.
Click to expand...

When you say you have an aptitude for science "what do you mean? You seem to not understand how the scientific method works. When I got my first chemistry lesson,my teacher explained it perfectly. It's very simple, "assume nothing". Something can never be 100 percent undeniably true, that's why "theory" is the highest degree of certainty in science. Facts are used to confirm a theory not the other way around. You START with in scientific terms, a theory namely, " the bible is litterral" and then you try to rearange the facts to confirm that theory, basicly reversing the process. You pick and choose what you think you can use and spin a hypotheses. That's why for you it's perfectly acceptable to use an article citing that there where 250 year old Chinese doctors with no more proof then the mere existence of that article. To you that's sufficient to be called proof and a fact. In science using a source like that would get you bood right of the stage.


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well like I said a million times before. Nothing to you actually means. Nothing I will accept. I have given you plenty of test using real life and what we can discern from the ground. The body of evidence is staggering litteraly covering all known sciences. Doesn't it botter you in the slightest, that altough you claim to have an open mind and you claim to adhere to the scientific method. Not a single source or explanation offered would be accepted by this scientific method. Furthermore you claim you know more about science then I do, yet all the things you say would give you an F in all introductionary science classes. Give me 1 test just 1 using the real world that I have no explanation for. As to lucy give me a source to your claim. As to Piltdown man. You are saying making mistakes invalidates all that we know. Let me tell you, like I did before. Piltdown man was accepted, and after it was found out a hoax, it was quickly and completly abandoned by all the scientific community. Like I said before, not a single argument Creationists use is ever completly abondened no matter how completly it is debunked. That alone is a TEST of its scientific validity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you do not reply to what was said.  All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion.  It's mind-numbing boring now.  I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you.  It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.  That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too.  You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God.  Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.
> 
> Let's say we toss two coins.  If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win.  If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win.  That's a simple experiment.  Now increase the number of coins to four.  Now fifty coins.  It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won.  Now let's take parts of an airplane.  Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts.  We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win.  It never forms a plane after a thousand tries.  We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible.  The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place.  You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together.  This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together.  Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together.  Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer.  Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible.  Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it.  Not evolution.  Ha ha.
> 
> ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something.  Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory.  It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably correct in my having trouble reading *your posts*.  Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule?  Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you.  If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere.  Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."?  You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created.  Not even a protein molecule.  It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane.  It's not about a "bolt" or lightening.  The bucket is just and empty vessel.  It does not matter if you have billions of buckets.  Nothing begats nothing.  So you're wrong there.  What we have are amino acids or the building blocks.  From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life.  Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.
> 
> I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source.  Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution.  Atheists are usually wrong.  I do care about science and have an aptitude for it.  Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds.  It should answer all you doubts and questions.  I did not put up an argument against it.  Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that.  We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time.  It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection.  Facts aren't just under evolution.  We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood.  There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts.  The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows.  For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it.  Your evidence validates my points.  And life did not evolve from proteins.  Mature, perfect adult life was created.  Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell.  We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions.  The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell.  Another miracle of life provided by God.  Did you understand this?  The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying?  Did you understand what you are saying?  Did you understand your copy and paste job?
> 
> Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science.  Creation *IS* science and science ends up backing it up.  The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you say you have an aptitude for science "what do you mean? You seem to not understand how the scientific method works. When I got my first chemistry lesson,my teacher explained it perfectly. It's very simple, "assume nothing". Something can never be 100 percent undeniably true, that's why "theory" is the highest degree of certainty in science. Facts are used to confirm a theory not the other way around. You START with in scientific terms, a theory namely, " the bible is litterral" and then you try to rearange the facts to confirm that theory, basicly reversing the process. You pick and choose what you think you can use and spin a hypotheses. That's why for you it's perfectly acceptable to use an article citing that there where 250 year old Chinese doctors with no more proof then the mere existence of that article. To you that's sufficient to be called proof and a fact. In science using a source like that would get you bood right of the stage.
Click to expand...

Lets play a little game. First life: The search for the first replicator This article wich I encourage you to read carefully and closely is how the scientific method works. It describes the search for the first self replicating molecules. I want you to note it's a story not just about success but also about failure it litterally names every single problem they had and even admits the problem might be unprovable, *unlike Creationism*. It describes how scientists start with an assumption and then figure how to test it, *unlike Creatonism*. When they give a fact, it very often gives a source, *unlike creationism.* It also describes when something doesn't work, that fact isn't ignored, alternatives immediatly start to be explored, *unlike Creationism*. And when something hasn't been tested yet, the simple fact that it might be possible is at no point confused with the statement it happened, *unlike Creationism.* Their is one thing this article doesn't illustrate namely when something is disproven the idea is abandoned so you won't have to answer that one.The game is the following, if you can debunk all of the statements I posted above Creationism can be considered a science. But you will have to give examples. *And I also would like some honesty from you. If they are able to make this self replicating molecule, would that in any way change your mind?*


----------



## LittleNipper

forkup said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you do not reply to what was said.  All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion.  It's mind-numbing boring now.  I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you.  It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.  That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too.  You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God.  Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.
> 
> Let's say we toss two coins.  If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win.  If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win.  That's a simple experiment.  Now increase the number of coins to four.  Now fifty coins.  It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won.  Now let's take parts of an airplane.  Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts.  We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win.  It never forms a plane after a thousand tries.  We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible.  The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place.  You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together.  This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together.  Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together.  Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer.  Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible.  Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it.  Not evolution.  Ha ha.
> 
> ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something.  Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory.  It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.
> 
> 
> 
> Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably correct in my having trouble reading *your posts*.  Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule?  Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you.  If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere.  Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."?  You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created.  Not even a protein molecule.  It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane.  It's not about a "bolt" or lightening.  The bucket is just and empty vessel.  It does not matter if you have billions of buckets.  Nothing begats nothing.  So you're wrong there.  What we have are amino acids or the building blocks.  From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life.  Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.
> 
> I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source.  Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution.  Atheists are usually wrong.  I do care about science and have an aptitude for it.  Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds.  It should answer all you doubts and questions.  I did not put up an argument against it.  Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that.  We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time.  It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection.  Facts aren't just under evolution.  We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood.  There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts.  The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows.  For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it.  Your evidence validates my points.  And life did not evolve from proteins.  Mature, perfect adult life was created.  Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell.  We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions.  The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell.  Another miracle of life provided by God.  Did you understand this?  The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying?  Did you understand what you are saying?  Did you understand your copy and paste job?
> 
> Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science.  Creation *IS* science and science ends up backing it up.  The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you say you have an aptitude for science "what do you mean? You seem to not understand how the scientific method works. When I got my first chemistry lesson,my teacher explained it perfectly. It's very simple, "assume nothing". Something can never be 100 percent undeniably true, that's why "theory" is the highest degree of certainty in science. Facts are used to confirm a theory not the other way around. You START with in scientific terms, a theory namely, " the bible is litterral" and then you try to rearange the facts to confirm that theory, basicly reversing the process. You pick and choose what you think you can use and spin a hypotheses. That's why for you it's perfectly acceptable to use an article citing that there where 250 year old Chinese doctors with no more proof then the mere existence of that article. To you that's sufficient to be called proof and a fact. In science using a source like that would get you bood right of the stage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets play a little game. First life: The search for the first replicator This article wich I encourage you to read carefully and closely is how the scientific method works. It describes the search for the first self replicating molecules. I want you to note it's a story not just about success but also about failure it litterally names every single problem they had and even admits the problem might be unprovable, *unlike Creationism*. It describes how scientists start with an assumption and then figure how to test it, *unlike Creatonism*. When they give a fact, it very often gives a source, *unlike creationism.* It also describes when something doesn't work, that fact isn't ignored, alternatives immediatly start to be explored, *unlike Creationism*. And when something hasn't been tested yet, the simple fact that it might be possible is at no point confused with the statement it happened, *unlike Creationism.* Their is one thing this article doesn't illustrate namely when something is disproven the idea is abandoned so you won't have to answer that one.The game is the following, if you can debunk all of the statements I posted above Creationism can be considered a science. But you will have to give examples. *And I also would like some honesty from you. If they are able to make this self replicating molecule, would that in any way change your mind?*
Click to expand...

Eolution when defined as oe species slowly metamorphasising


----------



## LittleNipper

Evolutionist Michael Denton wrote concerning Darwin:

His general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe (1985, p. 77).


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*- even though God gave him 120 years to do it ...*_
> 
> 
> no, it was to be accomplished before Noah's death, christian and Noah did not fail the Almighty as did moses the heritic.
> 
> when either the last of either expires, the Triumph of Good vs Evil those remaining will be the Final Judgement - the parable of Noah.
> 
> the Judgement was made by the Almighty beforehand before it expired and humanity was given a second chance.
> 
> 
> to bad for you Bond it is not between creationist and atheism but between the true faith against the deceptive bible, rendered by the Final Judgement.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The ark was built way before Noah's death.  Anyway, the Ark Encounter should answer our questions.  I would expect that for the price of admission.

All right.  So, Moses was a heretic.  What kind of man was he besides that?  Yet, God chose him to do His work, a very important job.  Why did this happen?

And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah?  How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?


----------



## james bond

LittleNipper said:


> Evolutionist Michael Denton wrote concerning Darwin:
> 
> His general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe (1985, p. 77).



Yes, it is.  Mutations are not positive.  It's usually negative or neutral.  What is the evidence that made Darwin think successive fortuitous mutations?

It would be circular reasoning.  Fortuitous mutations are caused by evolution.  The successive fortuitous mutations show the power of evolution.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you do not reply to what was said.  All you do is deny and spout unintelligent rhetoric and do not further the discussion.  It's mind-numbing boring now.  I realize that I can explain it to you, but I can not understand for you.  It's not making mistakes, but using outright fakery to match the findings with what your believe.  That has been the playbook of atheists and it appears to be your playbook, too.  You just continue to deny all of the evidence for God.  Any test for scientific validity is usually a test showing God instead of atheism.
> 
> Let's say we toss two coins.  If it comes up two heads or two tails, I win.  If it comes up one tail and one head, then you win.  That's a simple experiment.  Now increase the number of coins to four.  Now fifty coins.  It's still simple and we can figure out which results determine who won.  Now let's take parts of an airplane.  Let's say it's a small model plane and it has 350 parts.  We toss that with the help of a big bucket and if it forms a plane, you win.  It never forms a plane after a thousand tries.  We can conclude that your scenario happening is negligible.  The next day, I show you the same small model plane and it is put back together and all the parts are in the right place.  You ask how did it happen and I say I put it back together.  This means there was some intelligence involved in order to put it back together.  Also, there was intelligence involved in creating the plane so that all of its parts can be taken apart and put back together.  Using this more complex experiment, I have shown that there is existence of intelligence and a designer.  Your random chance of it being put together iby itself is negligible.  Complexity in even the smallest and what we perceive to be simple life or objects means there is intelligence and design behind it.  Not evolution.  Ha ha.
> 
> ntists to use God to explain when one could not explain something.  Atheist usurped it from creationists when they were debating the Big Bang Theory.  It's important to note that atheists and their scientists have no qualms about stealing from creation scientist theories or soultions and then refuse to accept their findings because it is based on the Bible, God or the supernatural.
> 
> 
> 
> Apperently you have trouble reading. The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond. So that destroys your entire premise but you do not care. Since that would debunk your entire argument. You are right this has gotten boring. The biggest lesson I've learned from this is how people like you think. You care nothing about the scientific process. You feel whatever article, myth, blurry movie, or Acient book, even what you think, carries just as much weight as for instance human life expectancy. Or known numbers of staff members it takes to take care of large groups of animals. Or current distribution of animals. Or the proven track record and predicting capability of dating methods, or genetics,etc,etc. You very rarely offer sources and when you do it's usually an article with a dubious authorship or something which has an easier non-magical explanation, nore is Creationism even in agreement amongst eachother,because I've found in the course of this argument, many, many different beliefs as what happened and why. Their is only one theory amongst scientist, evolution trough natural selection. Scientist disagree on perifial stuff around it, but not a single piece of evidence has shown up, challeging the basis to evolution. And there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably correct in my having trouble reading *your posts*.  Did you understand what I posted about amino acids and the protein molecule?  Read some Duane Gish and he can explain it to you.  If you are correct, then we should see life springing up everywhere.  Where is the experiment to demonstrate, "The first self repeclating protien,wheren't like you claim "a plane" but lets stick to the analogy "a bolt" It also wasn't like you claim 1 bucket. But billions of buckets all thrown up simultaniosly, it also wasn't 1 day, but milions of days . Nore was it random, since in biochemistry molecules want to bond."?  You already had 4.7 billion years according to evolution, but not one speck of life has been created.  Not even a protein molecule.  It goes to show that the fine-tuning theory of life is valid as I explained through the thought experiment with the 350-part model plane.  It's not about a "bolt" or lightening.  The bucket is just and empty vessel.  It does not matter if you have billions of buckets.  Nothing begats nothing.  So you're wrong there.  What we have are amino acids or the building blocks.  From that, your billions of years of passing time leaves us with amino acids -- not protein nor the stuff of life.  Read about the Miller-Urey experiment.
> 
> I have provided not just scientific evidence, but the greatest book in the world as the source.  Yet, you continue to deprecate what I have provided because of your "faith" in the pseudoscience of evolution.  Atheists are usually wrong.  I do care about science and have an aptitude for it.  Moreover, we'll have to see what the Ark Encounter holds.  It should answer all you doubts and questions.  I did not put up an argument against it.  Your dating methods have to do with time and the layers are not about that.  We have the fossil record, but it is not associated with a buildup over chronological time.  It isn't evolution through natural selection, but creation through natural selection.  Facts aren't just under evolution.  We have Alfred Russel Wallace to thank and not Darwood.  There is no mountain of evidence for evolution or you would have provided it in every post like I did with creationism in my posts.  The only thing I remember you posting as evidence is your cut and paste job and I'm still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  I already provided a small sample of what you think is not the evidence shows.  For example, the universal genetic code represents complexity and that is more evidence that an intelligent creator was behind it.  Your evidence validates my points.  And life did not evolve from proteins.  Mature, perfect adult life was created.  Proteins are the building blocks of life and if evolution were true, it would have evolved from that into a simple cell.  We would see this happen all around, but none happens in outer space nor the nether regions.  The amino acids are there, but the creation of proteins only happens within a cell.  Another miracle of life provided by God.  Did you understand this?  The questions I have for you are more basic and along the lines of did you understand what I am saying?  Did you understand what you are saying?  Did you understand your copy and paste job?
> 
> Finally, you still appear to think in your bias that creation is not science.  Creation *IS* science and science ends up backing it up.  The mountain of evidence is on my side and I provided the evidence for it throughout this thread including my thought experiment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> check page 141 I did explain in my own words. Not only that my explanation of point 1 went beyond what was asked and provided, a test for the valadity of radiometric dating, a test for genetic similarities, a test of stratafication, a valadation that all work togheter and another transistional fossil. So when you say I don't understand my post. You are actually saying 'I don't read your posts.' I could say I'm suprised but I'm truly not. I've seen plenty of examples of your selective reading of what I say. You also make my point every time you refer to the bible as proof. First of how you read the bible is a real minority view. So trying to use the number of people who believe in the bible as a confermation for your views is false. Second of, trying to use the bible to confirm the bible is circular reasoning. Thirdly if you try to use the bible as proof. You have to able to proof that the bible text are unambigous and true. You can't even proof the English bible texts say the same as the original and if it was unambigious different interpretation by other Christians would be impossible. As to my bias; it's a bias shared by the entire scietific community. The reason for it because it doesn't hold itself up to peer review. If it did so many different hypotheses within Creationism wouldn't be possible. It's a bias held by most Christians and it's a bias shared by the judicial system in the U.S. So you might not like it,but your hypothesis has been rejected, thouroghly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you say you have an aptitude for science "what do you mean? You seem to not understand how the scientific method works. When I got my first chemistry lesson,my teacher explained it perfectly. It's very simple, "assume nothing". Something can never be 100 percent undeniably true, that's why "theory" is the highest degree of certainty in science. Facts are used to confirm a theory not the other way around. You START with in scientific terms, a theory namely, " the bible is litterral" and then you try to rearange the facts to confirm that theory, basicly reversing the process. You pick and choose what you think you can use and spin a hypotheses. That's why for you it's perfectly acceptable to use an article citing that there where 250 year old Chinese doctors with no more proof then the mere existence of that article. To you that's sufficient to be called proof and a fact. In science using a source like that would get you bood right of the stage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets play a little game. First life: The search for the first replicator This article wich I encourage you to read carefully and closely is how the scientific method works. It describes the search for the first self replicating molecules. I want you to note it's a story not just about success but also about failure it litterally names every single problem they had and even admits the problem might be unprovable, *unlike Creationism*. It describes how scientists start with an assumption and then figure how to test it, *unlike Creatonism*. When they give a fact, it very often gives a source, *unlike creationism.* It also describes when something doesn't work, that fact isn't ignored, alternatives immediatly start to be explored, *unlike Creationism*. And when something hasn't been tested yet, the simple fact that it might be possible is at no point confused with the statement it happened, *unlike Creationism.* Their is one thing this article doesn't illustrate namely when something is disproven the idea is abandoned so you won't have to answer that one.The game is the following, if you can debunk all of the statements I posted above Creationism can be considered a science. But you will have to give examples. *And I also would like some honesty from you. If they are able to make this self replicating molecule, would that in any way change your mind?*
Click to expand...


From my thought experiment, what did you learn?  Why do you believe in a self replicating molecule?  My thought experiment showed that simple results like heads or tails can be reproduced even with many coins (parts).  However, once the end result is complex, then it takes intelligence to derive the end results.  A life molecule is complex.  It requires the storage of much information.

What does your link provide?  RNA.  Is RNA simple or complex?  What does it store in these experiments?

Then there is another problem.  Where is the RNA in the stuff of life I showed you with the Miller-Urey experiment and Carl Sagan?  The answer is there ain't none.

So, what is your point?  Where you are going with this?


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionist Michael Denton wrote concerning Darwin:
> 
> His general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe (1985, p. 77).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Mutations are not positive.  It's usually negative or neutral.  What is the evidence that made Darwin think successive fortuitous mutations?
> 
> It would be circular reasoning.  Fortuitous mutations are caused by evolution.  The successive fortuitous mutations show the power of evolution.
Click to expand...

Yet you admit to mutations at bacteriel level, calling it micro evolution. There are only 2 ways that would work. First way. There are 2 sorts of DNA. DNA that changes over time and DNA that doesn't. Genetics and evidence in nature ( finches) proves that DNA changes all the time. If it didn't cancer for instance would not exist, an obvious mutation So first way debunked. Second way there is a mechanism that stops DNA from mutating when a certain point is reached. This would imply that at a certain point, a species never gets cancer or is capable to adapt to changing enviremont, since the mechanism to change is stopped. Never been observed in nature.
The evidence Darwin had for succesive furtuitous mutations lays in those finches. All those finches he observed where adapted specificaly to a certain type of diet and enviremont  You even say it yourself changes are USUALLY negative or neutral (wich isn't true) they are usually neutral.But SOMETIMES it's positive giving that particular specimen a slightly better chance of survival. That percentage point becomes then slightly more likely to occur in offspring. Those small percentage points over time add up to subspecies and over an even longer time to new species altogheter.


----------



## hobelim

james bond said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> 
> Some people are more interested in being right even if they are wrong and don't care about the truth because they have confused faith with obstinate stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem attack does not provide a valid argument.  So already you lost.  One post and you have been extirpated.  Ha ha and good day.
Click to expand...



I am not trying to provide any valid argument. I have merely stated a fact that applies to many people of so called faith that you have demonstrated perfectly.

.


----------



## james bond

LittleNipper said:


> Evolutionist Michael Denton wrote concerning Darwin:
> 
> His general theory that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe (1985, p. 77).



You sound like a smart individual, LittleNipper.  So, let's continue discussing these mutations.  These evo scientists could not produce life from the "stuff of life" in Miller-Urey, so they took the most simplest of cells, bacteria, and modified it in order for bacterium to their bidding.  Any worthwhile idea to come from these evo scientists has to explained so a laymay can understand it.  Furthermore, it can be replicated by a high school biology student.  So all the DNA and all the RNA stuff that was created on the third day comes to the forefront in a simple cell.  We know that evo scientists cannot create bacterium, but there are plenty of it around to mess with.  So, once you have a *living* cell, and taking the right precautions, it can be modified to do the following:


So, is this mutation a positive one?  Now, that we have this modified artful bacteria, would you recommend ingesting it or rubbing it into a cut?  Of course not because we do not know what else this bacteria can do.  Fine as art, but one does need to handle with protective gloves.

Now, here is what the evo adults have done.  The idea was to turn bacteria into oil eaters, and make its creator a rich man.


However, what happened when they released this *safe *mutation to do its stuff?


You can bet it is worse than eating through boats.  It will eat skin and kill people who get infected.  Now, does the media report these things?  Of course not.  We can't blame evolution can we?  The best outcome of this would be to sue the makers, but will it happen?


----------



## james bond

hobelim said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> And lastly I answered the question you posed namely, How did life start from protiens. I can answer all your questions but it's kind of pointless, because whatever I say, you will disregard it because it doesn't mesh with your BELIEF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> 
> Some people are more interested in being right even if they are wrong and don't care about the truth because they have confused faith with obstinate stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem attack does not provide a valid argument.  So already you lost.  One post and you have been extirpated.  Ha ha and good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to provide any valid argument. I have merely stated a fact that applies to many people of so called faith that you have demonstrated perfectly.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ho hum.  We already know you aren't capable of providing a valid argument.

If it is a fact, then both sides can use it.  It can be applied to people who have faith in evolution.  You have demonstrated it perfectly.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> Yet you admit to mutations at bacteriel level, calling it micro evolution. There are only 2 ways that would work. First way. There are 2 sorts of DNA. DNA that changes over time and DNA that doesn't. Genetics and evidence in nature ( finches) proves that DNA changes all the time. If it didn't cancer for instance would not exist, an obvious mutation So first way debunked. Second way there is a mechanism that stops DNA from mutating when a certain point is reached. This would imply that at a certain point, a species never gets cancer or is capable to adapt to changing enviremont, since the mechanism to change is stopped. Never been observed in nature.
> The evidence Darwin had for succesive furtuitous mutations lays in those finches. All those finches he observed where adapted specificaly to a certain type of diet and enviremont  You even say it yourself changes are USUALLY negative or neutral (wich isn't true) they are usually neutral.But SOMETIMES it's positive giving that particular specimen a slightly better chance of survival. That percentage point becomes then slightly more likely to occur in offspring. Those small percentage points over time add up to subspecies and over an even longer time to new species altogheter.



I still do not think you understand because you did not answer my questions in your other post.  What is the simplest cell?  What comprises algae (created on the third day)?

How does one create it from the stuff of life in Miller-Urey?  And don't tell me we start with water, put it near sunlight and voila.  Ha ha.

So, now you evaded my last post to you and gone back to finches and natural selection.  The creationists can state the same thing and not call it evolution.  The DNA is complex and contains and incredible amount of information.  So while it can change and not change, it is a wonder of creation and how great God is.  It's evidence for an intelligent creator.

That said, are you saying natural selection is a mutation?

Again, mutations are negative or neutral.  You gave one with cancer.  They aren't positive or you would have provided a dozen examples.  Were you brainwashed into thinking they were positive and neutral by the evo scientists?  Will you infect yourself with mutated DNA as an experiment?

Finally, you mention better chance of survival *mutation*.  Just what is this?  It really isn't the mutation, but the natural selection.

Give me an experiment showing the mutations and how the positive mutated cells are the one that live?


----------



## james bond

I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the *positive* mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier.  Eat more GMO foods.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep.  That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it?

I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana.  He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC.  Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work.  Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better.  I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*- even though God gave him 120 years to do it ...*_
> 
> 
> no, it was to be accomplished before Noah's death, christian and Noah did not fail the Almighty as did moses the heritic.
> 
> when either the last of either expires, the Triumph of Good vs Evil those remaining will be the Final Judgement - the parable of Noah.
> 
> the Judgement was made by the Almighty beforehand before it expired and humanity was given a second chance.
> 
> 
> to bad for you Bond it is not between creationist and atheism but between the true faith against the deceptive bible, rendered by the Final Judgement.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ark was built way before Noah's death.  Anyway, the Ark Encounter should answer our questions.  I would expect that for the price of admission.
> 
> All right.  So, Moses was a heretic.  What kind of man was he besides that?  Yet, God chose him to do His work, a very important job.  Why did this happen?
> 
> And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah?  How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> God chose him to do His (their) work, a very important job. Why did this happen?



that's your decision to patronize the heretic - why is that, you read it ... those are your commandments as well.




james bond said:


> And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah?



The Triumphant between the Battle of Good vs Evil conclusion will be the final Judgement.




james bond said:


> How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?



you're an example, the atheist will fair better than you.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


james bond said:


> Then there is another problem. Where is the RNA in the stuff of life I showed you with the Miller-Urey experiment and Carl Sagan? The answer is there ain't none.




since there is replication in nature there is no distinction between the RNA source and the fact they exist.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the *positive* mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier.  Eat more GMO foods.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep.  That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it?
> 
> I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana.  He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC.  Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work.  Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better.  I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.


I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument.* Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.*


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah was 500 when he started building the Ark. He completed it in 100 hundred years even though God gave him 120 years to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's better to appreciate God's great works and make our humble home a happy place and heaven on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*- even though God gave him 120 years to do it ...*_
> 
> 
> no, it was to be accomplished before Noah's death, christian and Noah did not fail the Almighty as did moses the heritic.
> 
> when either the last of either expires, the Triumph of Good vs Evil those remaining will be the Final Judgement - the parable of Noah.
> 
> the Judgement was made by the Almighty beforehand before it expired and humanity was given a second chance.
> 
> 
> to bad for you Bond it is not between creationist and atheism but between the true faith against the deceptive bible, rendered by the Final Judgement.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ark was built way before Noah's death.  Anyway, the Ark Encounter should answer our questions.  I would expect that for the price of admission.
> 
> All right.  So, Moses was a heretic.  What kind of man was he besides that?  Yet, God chose him to do His work, a very important job.  Why did this happen?
> 
> And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah?  How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God chose him to do His (their) work, a very important job. Why did this happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's your decision to patronize the heretic - why is that, you read it ... those are your commandments as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you state the Final Judgment is the parable of Noah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Triumphant between the Battle of Good vs Evil conclusion will be the final Judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the Bible deceptive of the battle between good and evil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're an example, the atheist will fair better than you.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Again, your explanations for your comments are lacking.  Are you basing your comments on Moses on Judaism or other religion?  If so, the please explain.

Any questions about Noah, I am referring it to the Ark Encounter.  It is so close now, so it's worth the wait.  If I can get the vacation time, then I hope to go.

The reason I asked about the "Battle of Good vs Evil" is because I posted the following in another thread on USMB earlier this year.  The story behind it is interesting and led to some good discussion among the Christians here.  The prophecy will tell us when the end is near.  Some people think some of the prophecies have already happened, but I think each Christian has to check these things for themselves.  There are some things that have happened such as a unified Germany, the formation of the European Union and other events similar or which can be construed to what the Bible said, but I doubt we'll have Biblical proof that it was actually a prophecy fulfilled.  It would remain a matter of opinion since this isn't something like science backing up the Bible or a trial where we judge someone guilty or innocent.


Finally, are you atheist?  Why will the atheist fare better than me?

If you're atheist, then you'll just ignore and think it's more myths of Christians.  Thus, why is it a matter of yours?


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is another problem. Where is the RNA in the stuff of life I showed you with the Miller-Urey experiment and Carl Sagan? The answer is there ain't none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since there is replication in nature there is no distinction between the RNA source and the fact they exist.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
Ha ha.  You just admitted creation wins.  Atheist scientists have no evidence for the beginning of the universe nor the beginning of life.  Yet, they will not accept a creation theory.  While the Big Bang Theory is just a theory, it fits the Genesis creation model better than an universe from quantum.  Our physical laws demonstrate that this is not possible while a supernatural being can create the electromagnetic spectrum, Planck's constant or a system that is then relegated to the laws of thermodynamics on the first day.


----------



## yiostheoy

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


Your question refer to the philosophical issue of "First Cause".

Looks like you stumbled upon it somehow without a formal study of Philosophy.

There are other "proofs of God" in Philosophy as well:

- First Cause

- Prime Mover

- Artistic Artificer

- Purposeful Designer

- Ontological Proof (i.e., if I can imagine it then it must be true too)

Wiki has a good write up about this if you want a shortcut:

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However if you want the longer version of proof you will need to read Philosophy.

Most college Philosophy curricula begin with a survey course.

The best written one is the book by Bertrand Russell, "History Of Western Philosophy".

After you read that then you may want to update yourself with Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy".

The long and the short of it all is that there are 7 billion people on this planet of ours and most fall into one of the following individual categories:

- Deists

- Theists

- Atheists

- Agnostics

- Not interested's.

You cannot prove to one or other of them they are right or wrong.  Religion is simply a choice.  In most cases that choice has been a matter of brainwashing by parents, teachers, and friends however.

Science has nothing to do with religion, however several Atheists, Agnostics, and Not Interested's have made Science their religion.

Philosophy is also independent of Religion and of Science.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

yiostheoy said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question refer to the philosophical issue of "First Cause".
> 
> Looks like you stumbled upon it somehow without a formal study of Philosophy.
> 
> There are other "proofs of God" in Philosophy as well:
> 
> - First Cause
> 
> - Prime Mover
> 
> - Artistic Artificer
> 
> - Purposeful Designer
> 
> - Ontological Proof (i.e., if I can imagine it then it must be true too)
> 
> Wiki has a good write up about this if you want a shortcut:
> 
> Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> However if you want the longer version of proof you will need to read Philosophy.
> 
> Most college Philosophy curricula begin with a survey course.
> 
> The best written one is the book by Bertrand Russell, "History Of Western Philosophy".
> 
> After you read that then you may want to update yourself with Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy".
> 
> The long and the short of it all is that there are 7 billion people on this planet of ours and most fall into one of the following individual categories:
> 
> - Deists
> 
> - Theists
> 
> - Atheists
> 
> - Agnostics
> 
> - Not interested's.
> 
> You cannot prove to one or other of them they are right or wrong.  Religion is simply a choice.  In most cases that choice has been a matter of brainwashing by parents, teachers, and friends however.
> 
> Science has nothing to do with religion, however several Atheists, Agnostics, and Not Interested's have made Science their religion.
> 
> Philosophy is also independent of Religion and of Science.
Click to expand...






What makes you believe I haven't studied philosophy?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the *positive* mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier.  Eat more GMO foods.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep.  That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it?  Another would be Craig Venter.  He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.
> 
> I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana.  He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC.  Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work.  Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better.  I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument.* Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.*
Click to expand...


I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease.  Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome.  Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness?  I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation.  Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.

If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals.  It is evidence for creation.  Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.

I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it.  Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.

You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more.  The two ways you are referring to are 1)  Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution.  I thought we agreed on that and natural selection?  What other context are you using it in?

I do not think we can stop mutations.  That's just part of life.  We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution.  They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution.  Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells.  Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells.  I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand.  Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?

I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far.  Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity.  Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking.  Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

BuckToothMoron said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if science can't explain it in terms you can understand, it qualifies as a miracle?
Click to expand...






Does science explain what came before the Big Bang?

What about all those things that happened right after the Big Bang that didn't follow the natural laws of the universe because they were 'special events'?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IndependantAce said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point. I don't see how empirical science can ever explain why the physical universe exists; only trace things further and further back. Just like you could never explain how or why a computer was built simply by examining the internal parts.
Click to expand...







Empirical science only allows us the means to study God and all it's wonders.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is another problem. Where is the RNA in the stuff of life I showed you with the Miller-Urey experiment and Carl Sagan? The answer is there ain't none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since there is replication in nature there is no distinction between the RNA source and the fact they exist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You just admitted creation wins.  Atheist scientists have no evidence for the beginning of the universe nor the beginning of life.  Yet, they will not accept a creation theory.  While the Big Bang Theory is just a theory, it fits the Genesis creation model better than an universe from quantum.  Our physical laws demonstrate that this is not possible while a supernatural being can create the electromagnetic spectrum, Planck's constant or a system that is then relegated to the laws of thermodynamics on the first day.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Our physical laws demonstrate that this is not possible while a supernatural being can create the electromagnetic spectrum, Planck's constant or a system that is then relegated to the laws of thermodynamics on the first day.


_*
on the first day ... Ha ha.  You just admitted creation ... (fails).
*_

there is no first day_*, *_the process is cyclical all matter is expelled at a finite angle where their trajectory will eventually return them together to their point of origin recreating through compression the combustible point of singularity.




james bond said:


> Atheist scientists have no evidence for the beginning of the universe nor the beginning of life.




that is my point, the Almighty entrusted moses with Their own Etchings the heretic put upon himself to destroy - you also have no proof.

what was the origin for life on Earth is not a contradiction from its inception for its purpose in attaining admission to the Everlasting as the same for all beings - where is your proof it is you who is made in the likeness of the Almighty than any other creature, christian is that written by moses as well. when it is humanity that is hurled from reason to which salvation was granted once but is now a candidate for extinction -

whether made by God or of its own making the Spirit of either would have the same task to accomplish in obtaining Admission to the Everlasting.




james bond said:


> Finally, are you atheist? Why will the atheist fare better than me?
> 
> If you're atheist, then you'll just ignore and think it's more myths of Christians. Thus, why is it a matter of yours?



_*why is it a matter of yours ...*_

the parable of Noah refers to humanity and not the individual, those remaining in the end will all be the same, they will all either be granted Admission or they will all be condemned with the same for their lineage.

or maybe a few Spirits may make it on their own, a whimper of hope because as it is going presently the prospects are not looking very bright.

.


----------



## james bond

*BreezeWood*, the point of singularity is just a theory, isn't it?  What you won't consider is that it's God.  We do not know how to get there because we would have to overcome spacetime, travel at the speed of light and gravity of a massive black hole.  What the first day signifies is how our creator designed our universe so that we may live.  There is a sequence involved.  Did this just go over your head?  Of course, it did.

You're mixing science and Moses (as well as *your* other points).  There is proof of Moses.  It was verified by different eyewitnesses.  So, now you admit there is an Almighty, which you did before, in order to give Moses his task.

I'm going to stop talking with you here just because...  for just cause.  Good day, my brother.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument.* Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.*



I'm going to give you the "mutation" of skin colors as a positive.  Someone described it as diversity.  However, is diversity the original trait or a mutation?  Could the original settings be set to diversity since natural selection follows from this?  Or was the original setting to sameness and we all mutated?  Parsimony should give us the answer.


----------



## yiostheoy

Damaged Eagle said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question refer to the philosophical issue of "First Cause".
> 
> Looks like you stumbled upon it somehow without a formal study of Philosophy.
> 
> There are other "proofs of God" in Philosophy as well:
> 
> - First Cause
> 
> - Prime Mover
> 
> - Artistic Artificer
> 
> - Purposeful Designer
> 
> - Ontological Proof (i.e., if I can imagine it then it must be true too)
> 
> Wiki has a good write up about this if you want a shortcut:
> 
> Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> However if you want the longer version of proof you will need to read Philosophy.
> 
> Most college Philosophy curricula begin with a survey course.
> 
> The best written one is the book by Bertrand Russell, "History Of Western Philosophy".
> 
> After you read that then you may want to update yourself with Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy".
> 
> The long and the short of it all is that there are 7 billion people on this planet of ours and most fall into one of the following individual categories:
> 
> - Deists
> 
> - Theists
> 
> - Atheists
> 
> - Agnostics
> 
> - Not interested's.
> 
> You cannot prove to one or other of them they are right or wrong.  Religion is simply a choice.  In most cases that choice has been a matter of brainwashing by parents, teachers, and friends however.
> 
> Science has nothing to do with religion, however several Atheists, Agnostics, and Not Interested's have made Science their religion.
> 
> Philosophy is also independent of Religion and of Science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 79656
> 
> What makes you believe I haven't studied philosophy?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

I suppose I got that impression (that you had not studied Philosophy) because you mixed science and religion with your First Cause argument from Philosophy all 3 in one.

And Bertrand Russell tells us that we must never mix Science and Religion and Philosophy -- the 3 of them must always be kept separate.

Therefore I figured that you have never read Russell.  Therefore I concluded that you had never studied Philosophy.

Sorry if I am mistaken.

But if you ARE indeed a Philosopher than I don't think it is fair picking on non-philosophers with Rhetorical fallacies.

The fallacy of Religion is affirmation of the consequent.  Theists cannot prove Religion or God.  Religion is a choice that depends on faith.

The fallacy of Science is false authority.  Scientists have no proof of God and they never will.  They cannot disprove God either.

And if you are going to utilize the First Cause argument of Philosophy for proof of God, then you should at least give credit for it to San Tomas Aquinas who first formulated it.

Just my own thoughts, ... .


----------



## Damaged Eagle

yiostheoy said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question refer to the philosophical issue of "First Cause".
> 
> Looks like you stumbled upon it somehow without a formal study of Philosophy.
> 
> There are other "proofs of God" in Philosophy as well:
> 
> - First Cause
> 
> - Prime Mover
> 
> - Artistic Artificer
> 
> - Purposeful Designer
> 
> - Ontological Proof (i.e., if I can imagine it then it must be true too)
> 
> Wiki has a good write up about this if you want a shortcut:
> 
> Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> However if you want the longer version of proof you will need to read Philosophy.
> 
> Most college Philosophy curricula begin with a survey course.
> 
> The best written one is the book by Bertrand Russell, "History Of Western Philosophy".
> 
> After you read that then you may want to update yourself with Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy".
> 
> The long and the short of it all is that there are 7 billion people on this planet of ours and most fall into one of the following individual categories:
> 
> - Deists
> 
> - Theists
> 
> - Atheists
> 
> - Agnostics
> 
> - Not interested's.
> 
> You cannot prove to one or other of them they are right or wrong.  Religion is simply a choice.  In most cases that choice has been a matter of brainwashing by parents, teachers, and friends however.
> 
> Science has nothing to do with religion, however several Atheists, Agnostics, and Not Interested's have made Science their religion.
> 
> Philosophy is also independent of Religion and of Science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 79656
> 
> What makes you believe I haven't studied philosophy?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I got that impression (that you had not studied Philosophy) because you mixed science and religion with your First Cause argument from Philosophy all 3 in one.
> 
> And Bertrand Russell tells us that we must never mix Science and Religion and Philosophy -- the 3 of them must always be kept separate.
> 
> Therefore I figured that you have never read Russell.  Therefore I concluded that you had never studied Philosophy.
> 
> Sorry if I am mistaken.
> 
> But if you ARE indeed a Philosopher than I don't think it is fair picking on non-philosophers with Rhetorical fallacies.
> 
> The fallacy of Religion is affirmation of the consequent.  Theists cannot prove Religion or God.  Religion is a choice that depends on faith.
> 
> The fallacy of Science is false authority.  Scientists have no proof of God and they never will.  They cannot disprove God either.
> 
> And if you are going to utilize the First Cause argument of Philosophy for proof of God, then you should at least give credit for it to San Tomas Aquinas who first formulated it.
> 
> Just my own thoughts, Brother.
Click to expand...







Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...

Have you read the entire thread?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## yiostheoy

Damaged Eagle said:


> Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...
> 
> Have you read the entire thread?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


The entire thread ??

Why would I do that after finding several fallacies in the original post?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

yiostheoy said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...
> 
> Have you read the entire thread?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire thread ??
> 
> Why would I do that after finding several fallacies in the original post?
Click to expand...







If you don't want to read it that is your choice.

The only fallacy that I see is your not comprehending my position on the subject by introducing a philosophical concept that I consider quaint but incorrect.

I have all the proof that God exists that I require and that science is a means of comprehending God.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## yiostheoy

Damaged Eagle said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...
> 
> Have you read the entire thread?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire thread ??
> 
> Why would I do that after finding several fallacies in the original post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to read it that is your choice.
> 
> The only fallacy that I see is your not comprehending my position on the subject by introducing a philosophical concept that I consider quaint but incorrect.
> 
> I have all the proof that God exists that I require and that science is a means of comprehending God.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

It is obvious that your are plagiarizing San Tomas Aquinas' argument for his "First Cause" proof of God and you are claiming it for yourself and trying to look smart.

That makes you a literary thief.

Think of your own proof of God and then publish that.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

yiostheoy said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...
> 
> Have you read the entire thread?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire thread ??
> 
> Why would I do that after finding several fallacies in the original post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't want to read it that is your choice.
> 
> The only fallacy that I see is your not comprehending my position on the subject by introducing a philosophical concept that I consider quaint but incorrect.
> 
> I have all the proof that God exists that I require and that science is a means of comprehending God.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is obvious that your are plagiarizing San Tomas Aquinas' argument for his "First Cause" proof of God and you are claiming it for yourself and trying to look smart.
> 
> That makes you a literary thief.
> 
> Think of your own proof of God and then publish that.
Click to expand...






Saint Thomas Aquinas was Christian and I am not.

My beliefs about God the universe and everything are my own.

My argument would change if instead the scientific community decided to go with a Steady State Theory instead of the Big Bang Theory. So if you think I'm attempting to prove God's existence through some 'First Cause' you are mistaken. I already had the all the proof I needed that God is real without such proofs.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## yiostheoy

Commandment #8:

Thou shalt not steal.

Jewish commandment actually, but on point.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

yiostheoy said:


> Commandment #8:
> 
> Thou shalt not steal.
> 
> Jewish commandment actually, but on point.







When did I state that I was Jewish? Nope! Wrong guess..... Perhaps you should really go back and find out what my beliefs are or simply ask. But since you don't feel inclined to investigate such matters...

You continue to refuse to read to entire thread and assume things. Isn't that a fallacy in itself? I do believe so! Your appeal to probability is lacking from the onset and only leads you to an argument of fallacy.

Everything is stolen. Even this simple form of communication is stolen from someone else. So if you have a problem with someone utilizing someone else's ideas to make a point then I'll simply point out that you're already stealing someone else's ideas, like Bertrand Russell, in attempting to make a point. Instead of cherry picking your argument perhaps you should find out the data that lead to the conclusion presented. Besides if one should not steal then those scientists should have know better than to attempt to create a Creation Theology of their own. So if atheists who think science is the end to a means want to argue I'm more than willing to play.

Damn!!!!! Is this thread up to a 145 pages long. Damn!...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## HUGGY

All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 79697
> 
> 
> All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? You can't disprove that there isn't a tiny teapot floating between Earth and Mars in the same way you can't prove there WASN'T a miracle that created the universe. You are using a flawed system of logic that attempts to distract the burden of proof from the person making the claim.

What is this thread's obsession with posting music videos like it gets them anywhere? I'm really starting to notice Christianity is more prevalent in American music culture than I thought.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 79697
> 
> 
> All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? You can't disprove that there isn't a tiny teapot floating between Earth and Mars in the same way you can't prove there WASN'T a miracle that created the universe. You are using a flawed system of logic that attempts to distract the burden of proof from the person making the claim.
> 
> What is this thread's obsession with posting music videos like it gets them anywhere? I'm really starting to notice Christianity is more prevalent in American music culture than I thought.
Click to expand...







Still haven't heard anyone answer what kick started the universe so obviously this Big Bang thingee must be one of them there Russell's Teapot thingees because no one can prove it happened. So using science to prove how everything happened must be a flawed system of logic also because everyone is being asked to believe that some miraculous event occurred about fifteen billion years ago that defies scientific analysis. Right? 

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 79697
> 
> 
> All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? You can't disprove that there isn't a tiny teapot floating between Earth and Mars in the same way you can't prove there WASN'T a miracle that created the universe. You are using a flawed system of logic that attempts to distract the burden of proof from the person making the claim.
> 
> What is this thread's obsession with posting music videos like it gets them anywhere? I'm really starting to notice Christianity is more prevalent in American music culture than I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't heard anyone answer what kick started the universe so obviously this Big Bang thingee must be one of them there Russell's Teapot thingees because no one can prove it happened. So using science to prove how everything happened must be a flawed system of logic also because everyone is being asked to believe that some miraculous event occurred about fifteen billion years ago that defies scientific analysis. Right?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


We do have proof of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang  - NASA Science
What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang? - Universe Today

The Big Bang is the most well-supported and logical model of how the universe came to be.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 79697
> 
> 
> All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? You can't disprove that there isn't a tiny teapot floating between Earth and Mars in the same way you can't prove there WASN'T a miracle that created the universe. You are using a flawed system of logic that attempts to distract the burden of proof from the person making the claim.
> 
> What is this thread's obsession with posting music videos like it gets them anywhere? I'm really starting to notice Christianity is more prevalent in American music culture than I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't heard anyone answer what kick started the universe so obviously this Big Bang thingee must be one of them there Russell's Teapot thingees because no one can prove it happened. So using science to prove how everything happened must be a flawed system of logic also because everyone is being asked to believe that some miraculous event occurred about fifteen billion years ago that defies scientific analysis. Right?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have proof of the Big Bang.
> The Big Bang  - NASA Science
> What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang? - Universe Today
> 
> The Big Bang is the most well-supported and logical model of how the universe came to be.
Click to expand...







All I'm seeing is evidence that violates Newton's Laws Of Motion.

What kick started the universe?

Let me guess... It just happened and it's not to be questioned because there's 100% scientific consensus on the matter.

That sounds very much like a miracle happened to me... Which means scientific consensus leads us right back to your teapot not?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> All I'm seeing is evidence that violates Newton's Laws Of Motion.
> 
> What kick started the universe?
> 
> Let me guess... It just happened and it's not to be questioned because there's 100% scientific consensus on the matter.
> 
> That sounds very much like a miracle happened to me... Which means scientific consensus leads us right back to your teapot not?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



We don't know the state of the universe before the Big Bang, Scientists are willing to admit that. But you can't insert God or anything else in there because that is both an argument from ignorance and a god of the gaps argument. What do Newton's Laws of motions have to do with anything here?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I'm seeing is evidence that violates Newton's Laws Of Motion.
> 
> What kick started the universe?
> 
> Let me guess... It just happened and it's not to be questioned because there's 100% scientific consensus on the matter.
> 
> That sounds very much like a miracle happened to me... Which means scientific consensus leads us right back to your teapot not?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know the state of the universe before the Big Bang, Scientists are willing to admit that. But you can't insert God or anything else in there because that is both an argument from ignorance and a god of the gaps argument.
Click to expand...


It sounds to me like scientific consensus is an argument of ignorance and a god of the gaps argument too.



Epitah said:


> What do Newton's Laws of motions have to do with anything here?



What kick started the universe?

*





Looks like all you have is a teapot

*****CHUCKLE*****


*


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> It sounds to me like scientific consensus is an argument of ignorance and a god of the gaps argument too.
> 
> What kick started the universe?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like all you have is a teapot*



How is accepting we don't have an explanation either of those? It is neither an argument for something being true nor is it an assertion of God. Now you're just being stupid, and you obviously have no clue what the purpose of the teapot is. It is a demonstration of who the burden of proof lies on.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds to me like scientific consensus is an argument of ignorance and a god of the gaps argument too.
> 
> What kick started the universe?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like all you have is a teapot*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is accepting we don't have an explanation either of those? It is neither an argument for something being true nor is it an assertion of God. Now you're just being stupid, and you obviously have no clue what the purpose of the teapot is. It is a demonstration of who the burden of proof lies on.
Click to expand...







The burden of proof lies on the scientists to prove that something kick started the universe thereby not violating Newton's Laws Of Motion. Until then all they have is evidence that indicates the Big Bang happened and a scientific consensus that may or may not be true.

On the other hand...

*Miracle: *A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.

I'm content with the fact a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Damaged Eagle said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if science can't explain it in terms you can understand, it qualifies as a miracle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 79667
> 
> Does science explain what came before the Big Bang?
> 
> What about all those things that happened right after the Big Bang that didn't follow the natural laws of the universe because they were 'special events'?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Science is a process, unlike faith or religion  which are closer to an ends. Science is about learning and discovery. Just because science can't answer the question does not prove the existence of God or a miracle. Early civilizations prayed to Sun gods, rain gods, hunting gods, etc., because their science didn't explain the lack of rain or dearth of eatable animals. Science is for those with patience, faith is for those who don't work well with the unknown.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the *positive* mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier.  Eat more GMO foods.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep.  That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it?  Another would be Craig Venter.  He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.
> 
> I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana.  He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC.  Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work.  Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better.  I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument.* Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease.  Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome.  Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness?  I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation.  Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.
> 
> If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals.  It is evidence for creation.  Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.
> 
> I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it.  Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.
> 
> You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more.  The two ways you are referring to are 1)  Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.
> 
> I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution.  I thought we agreed on that and natural selection?  What other context are you using it in?
> 
> I do not think we can stop mutations.  That's just part of life.  We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution.  They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution.  Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells.  Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells.  I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand.  Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?
> 
> I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far.  Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity.  Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking.  Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.
Click to expand...

So far you have given me that microevolution is a fact. You have also admitted to natural selection. What you do not seem to get, that there is no such thing as microevolution, evolution doesn't stop. Any organism is under continuus pressure from it's enviremont. So any organism has to adapt constantly. This results in minute changes but  over millenia constant minute changes result in a completly different organism. The only way a person, who admits to evolution on a small scale and natural selection, can deny evolution on a large scale. Is if he would claim. There are 2 different types of DNA, 1 that changes and one that doesn't or if he would insist that for some reason at a certain point DNA would stop changing. That's my point. Btw I've found another very intresting mutation. Most people from European decent are lactose tolarant, this is a result because in aggrarian society with emphasis on herding being able to digest milk was a big advantage.
As to your argument of me not defending abiogenesis is proof of God. Only a religious person would think that not being able to proof something is proof of something else. Religion through the ages has tried to give a supernatural explanation to everything. From the sun the moon and the stars, to rain, drought, thunder and lightning. They have been proven wrong by science every time. This is the exact reason why Creationism is not a science. It revels in the fact that science doesn't know everything and activly discourages to accept any other explanation as the divine. In short, it tries to kill curiosity, wich is the driving force behind science,


----------



## yiostheoy

Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).

You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.

Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument.  He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.

Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.

The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea.  It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it.  It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God.  Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.

Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.

Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.

The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.

The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.


----------



## forkup

yiostheoy said:


> Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).
> 
> You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.
> 
> Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument.  He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.
> 
> Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.
> 
> The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea.  It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it.  It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God.  Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.
> 
> Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.
> 
> Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.
> 
> The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.
> 
> The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.


How I look at it, is that science does give the answer. The answer is, keep searching. I for one, have no problem with the sentence. "I don't know." That sentence drives me to find out. I consider myself a pragmatic man,  And I have a problem with the idea of first cause to begin with. Cause you can put the argument into the infinite. " Who created the creator." Something had to be at the beginning but you can't even define the something or the beginning.


----------



## yiostheoy

forkup said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).
> 
> You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.
> 
> Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument.  He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.
> 
> Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.
> 
> The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea.  It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it.  It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God.  Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.
> 
> Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.
> 
> Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.
> 
> The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.
> 
> The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> How I look at it, is that science does give the answer. The answer is, keep searching. I for one, have no problem with the sentence. "I don't know." That sentence drives me to find out. I consider myself a pragmatic man,  And I have a problem with the idea of first cause to begin with. Cause you can put the argument into the infinite. " Who created the creator." Something had to be at the beginning but you can't even define the something or the beginning.
Click to expand...

"Who created the creator" is a first cause argument.  In Philosophy there must have been one Creator who (1) was the first and (2) who always existed and was not therefore in need of creation.  There are no other philosophical possibilities without getting into further hot water about what gods are and what we are.

So the Philosophical answer to the question of "is there a god?" is answer by "there must be a god because someone had to create us and all things and we know we did not create ourselves because we don't know how".

The answers of the various religions depends on what religion or mythology you follow.  Christianity and Islam are completely silent about creation -- they simply start with their own messengers -- Jesus and Muhammad.

Judaism begins with a creation story formulated by Moses.

Greek mythology begins with matter having existed forever, out of which Gia the Earth (a goddess) creates herself and then she creates her brother the Ouranos the heavens.  Hindu has similar myths with similar gods.

Science cannot answer the question because science has insufficient data from which to infer the likely answer.  Science can tell us that based on red shifts from distant galaxies in the Hubble deep field the Universe was created 13.82 billion years ago with some sort of big bang that has left background radiation of itself 13.82 billion light years away from the Earth, but not more specifically as to how or from what or by whom.

History does not tell us either.  There is no consistent oral tradition passed down from ancient times to us which explains the recollections of where our ancient fathers and mothers came from.  Moses came up with his own when he invented his own shorthand Hebrew script for writing down all of his visionary experiences and laws.  But he falls short of giving us specific sources and therefore his credibility does not go unchallenged.  He does not say "I learned such and so from my father and mother and such and so from the Hebrew/Babylonian stories of the people".  He just rants.  If you read Moses' writings in Hebrew they consist of long run-on sentences without punctuation.  The scribes have since cleaned it up a bit.


----------



## james bond

HUGGY said:


> All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.



Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.  

What is the death driven rubbish?

We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.


----------



## james bond

Epitah said:


> We do have proof of the Big Bang.
> The Big Bang  - NASA Science
> What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang? - Universe Today
> 
> The Big Bang is the most well-supported and logical model of how the universe came to be.



Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then?  Ha ha.

The Big Bang is still a theory.  Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end.  It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.

The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator).  It more closely backs up the Bible.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the *positive* mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier.  Eat more GMO foods.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep.  That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it?  Another would be Craig Venter.  He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.
> 
> I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana.  He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC.  Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work.  Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better.  I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument.* Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease.  Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome.  Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness?  I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation.  Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.
> 
> If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals.  It is evidence for creation.  Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.
> 
> I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it.  Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.
> 
> You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more.  The two ways you are referring to are 1)  Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.
> 
> I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution.  I thought we agreed on that and natural selection?  What other context are you using it in?
> 
> I do not think we can stop mutations.  That's just part of life.  We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution.  They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution.  Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells.  Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells.  I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand.  Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?
> 
> I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far.  Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity.  Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking.  Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far you have given me that microevolution is a fact. You have also admitted to natural selection. What you do not seem to get, that there is no such thing as microevolution, evolution doesn't stop. Any organism is under continuus pressure from it's enviremont. So any organism has to adapt constantly. This results in minute changes but  over millenia constant minute changes result in a completly different organism. The only way a person, who admits to evolution on a small scale and natural selection, can deny evolution on a large scale. Is if he would claim. There are 2 different types of DNA, 1 that changes and one that doesn't or if he would insist that for some reason at a certain point DNA would stop changing. That's my point. Btw I've found another very intresting mutation. Most people from European decent are lactose tolarant, this is a result because in aggrarian society with emphasis on herding being able to digest milk was a big advantage.
> As to your argument of me not defending abiogenesis is proof of God. Only a religious person would think that not being able to proof something is proof of something else. Religion through the ages has tried to give a supernatural explanation to everything. From the sun the moon and the stars, to rain, drought, thunder and lightning. They have been proven wrong by science every time. This is the exact reason why Creationism is not a science. It revels in the fact that science doesn't know everything and activly discourages to accept any other explanation as the divine. In short, it tries to kill curiosity, wich is the driving force behind science,
Click to expand...


Microevolution is natural selection.  Neither are facts.  In fact, I have not given it to you as a fact.  We conclude natural selection from the facts, such as the changes of a finch's beak.  It is the best theory we have to explain what happens when life changes.  It is the diversity of life.  So, are you agreeing that it is not a mutation?  Skin color is not a mutation because that is what is intended to happen.  Mutation would be an organism that does not change by natural selection.  Can you think of life that does not change?  Even the most simplest of life has changed.  Buddhists state life is change.

Let's stop with the discussion on mutation.  You can not admit that I am right and you just move on to something else.  We are not communicating and it's extremely boring.  Moreover, you have not explained nor given an experiment where life is created from molecules as you stated (your experiment stated with a living organism and its DNA and RNA.  You did not know the answer to what is a simple cell -- algae or bacteria.

Let's just stop with our discussion altogether.  I never met anyone who is so stubborn in their beliefs that they will not admit when someone else has provided better points than them. 

For those who are smart enough to understand mutation, if it is positive, then we should see some results such as more bone density, i.e. stronger bones, we can sleep less hours and be productive, our immune system will be able to better resist disease and infection and our mortality will be going up, our endurance will be better, our bodies will be stronger and we can demonstrate this by measuring our strength, and we will have better memories.  

We are done


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the *positive* mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier.  Eat more GMO foods.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep.  That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it?  Another would be Craig Venter.  He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.
> 
> I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana.  He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC.  Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work.  Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better.  I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument.* Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease.  Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome.  Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness?  I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation.  Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.
> 
> If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals.  It is evidence for creation.  Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.
> 
> I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it.  Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.
> 
> You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more.  The two ways you are referring to are 1)  Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.
> 
> I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution.  I thought we agreed on that and natural selection?  What other context are you using it in?
> 
> I do not think we can stop mutations.  That's just part of life.  We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution.  They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution.  Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells.  Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells.  I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand.  Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?
> 
> I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far.  Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity.  Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking.  Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far you have given me that microevolution is a fact. You have also admitted to natural selection. What you do not seem to get, that there is no such thing as microevolution, evolution doesn't stop. Any organism is under continuus pressure from it's enviremont. So any organism has to adapt constantly. This results in minute changes but  over millenia constant minute changes result in a completly different organism. The only way a person, who admits to evolution on a small scale and natural selection, can deny evolution on a large scale. Is if he would claim. There are 2 different types of DNA, 1 that changes and one that doesn't or if he would insist that for some reason at a certain point DNA would stop changing. That's my point. Btw I've found another very intresting mutation. Most people from European decent are lactose tolarant, this is a result because in aggrarian society with emphasis on herding being able to digest milk was a big advantage.
> As to your argument of me not defending abiogenesis is proof of God. Only a religious person would think that not being able to proof something is proof of something else. Religion through the ages has tried to give a supernatural explanation to everything. From the sun the moon and the stars, to rain, drought, thunder and lightning. They have been proven wrong by science every time. This is the exact reason why Creationism is not a science. It revels in the fact that science doesn't know everything and activly discourages to accept any other explanation as the divine. In short, it tries to kill curiosity, wich is the driving force behind science,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microevolution is natural selection.  Neither are facts.  In fact, I have not given it to you as a fact.  We conclude natural selection from the facts, such as the changes of a finch's beak.  It is the best theory we have to explain what happens when life changes.  It is the diversity of life.  So, are you agreeing that it is not a mutation?  Skin color is not a mutation because that is what is intended to happen.  Mutation would be an organism that does not change by natural selection.  Can you think of life that does not change?  Even the most simplest of life has changed.  Buddhists state life is change.
> 
> Let's stop with the discussion on mutation.  You can not admit that I am right and you just move on to something else.  We are not communicating and it's extremely boring.  Moreover, you have not explained nor given an experiment where life is created from molecules as you stated (your experiment stated with a living organism and its DNA and RNA.  You did not know the answer to what is a simple cell -- algae or bacteria.
> 
> Let's just stop with our discussion altogether.  I never met anyone who is so stubborn in their beliefs that they will not admit when someone else has provided better points than them.
> 
> For those who are smart enough to understand mutation, if it is positive, then we should see some results such as more bone density, i.e. stronger bones, we can sleep less hours and be productive, our immune system will be able to better resist disease and infection and our mortality will be going up, our endurance will be better, our bodies will be stronger and we can demonstrate this by measuring our strength, and we will have better memories.
> 
> We are done
Click to expand...

Mutations are real. Some help and some don't. If they hurt your species dies off. If it helps your kind thrives.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

BuckToothMoron said:


> Science is a process, unlike faith or religion  which are closer to an ends.



What ends would those be?



BuckToothMoron said:


> Science is about learning and discovery.



I've never said it wasn't.



BuckToothMoron said:


> Just because science can't answer the question does not prove the existence of God or a miracle.



On the other hand it doesn't prove God doesn't exist either. 



BuckToothMoron said:


> Early civilizations prayed to Sun gods, rain gods, hunting gods, etc., because their science didn't explain the lack of rain or dearth of eatable animals.



And so.o..o...?????



BuckToothMoron said:


> Science is for those with patience,...



I have me lot's of patience... At least a 145 pages worth of patience at this time.

*****CHUCKLE*****



BuckToothMoron said:


> ...faith is for those who don't work well with the unknown.



Isn't that also why people, who claim to be atheists, who hardly have a working knowledge of science and math fall back on the scientific consensus because they require faith in something?

Looks like that to me anyway.





Seems that the followers of God and the followers of science have a lot in common.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

james bond said:


> Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then?  Ha ha.
> 
> The Big Bang is still a theory.  Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end.  It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.
> 
> The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator).  It more closely backs up the Bible.



The Big Bang Theory is a fact, and it's not an explosion of smoke and fire, it's an expansion of the universe. And that's how Science works, we alter our ideas and theories based on new information to reflect reality as accurately as possible, it's called the Scientific method. And no, The Big Bang doesn't back up the Bible at all, lol. The Bible says the universe and the Earth was created in a few days, that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is a process, unlike faith or religion  which are closer to an ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ends would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is about learning and discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never said it wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because science can't answer the question does not prove the existence of God or a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand it doesn't prove God doesn't exist either.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Early civilizations prayed to Sun gods, rain gods, hunting gods, etc., because their science didn't explain the lack of rain or dearth of eatable animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so.o..o...?????
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is for those with patience,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have me lot's of patience... At least a 145 pages worth of patience at this time.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...faith is for those who don't work well with the unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that also why people, who claim to be atheists, who hardly have a working knowledge of science and math fall back on the scientific consensus because they require faith in something?
> 
> Looks like that to me anyway.
> 
> View attachment 79781
> 
> Seems that the followers of God and the followers of science have a lot in common.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Science aims to learn more about everything through processes while Religion just promises straight answers, even if they're completely illogical.

It's up to the person that thinks God exists to prove it, do we need to go back to the teapot?

His point was that people invented Gods to explain things that they had no knowledge of at the time, Gods don't actually give you any answers.

Science actually gives logical explanations with evidence and no magic, so it's better to believe it than religion.

Could you quit spamming the thread with music videos and ***CHUCKLE***? You look like an idiot.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

yiostheoy said:


> Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).
> 
> You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.
> 
> Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument.  He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.
> 
> Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.
> 
> The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea.  It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it.  It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God.  Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.
> 
> Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.
> 
> Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.
> 
> The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.
> 
> The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.





The underlying problem here is not understanding what the OP believes about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Science aims to learn more about everything through processes while Religion just promises straight answers, even if they're completely illogical.



Did I state anywhere in this thread that I belonged to some sort of standard religion?



Epitah said:


> It's up to the person that thinks God exists to prove it, do we need to go back to the teapot?



Shall we go back to your faith that something unknown somehow kick started the universe some 13.82 billion years ago?

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> His point was that people invented Gods to explain things that they had no knowledge of at the time, Gods don't actually give you any answers.



My God gives me all sorts of answers if I ask the right questions.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> Science actually gives logical explanations with evidence and no magic, so it's better to believe it than religion.



So you're a scientist and/or have a firm background in science?

OR

Are you one of those that has faith when you say there is a 100% or 99% or 81% or 66% scientific consensus on the matter?



Epitah said:


> Could you quit spamming the thread with music videos and ***CHUCKLE***? You look like an idiot.







No!

Could you learn not to be so discriminating and bigoted about other peoples posts and style?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then?  Ha ha.
> 
> The Big Bang is still a theory.  Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end.  It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.
> 
> The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator).  It more closely backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang Theory is a fact, and it's not an explosion of smoke and fire, it's an expansion of the universe. And that's how Science works, we alter our ideas and theories based on new information to reflect reality as accurately as possible, it's called the Scientific method. And no, The Big Bang doesn't back up the Bible at all, lol. The Bible says the universe and the Earth was created in a few days, that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Click to expand...







A theory is nothing more than a conglomeration of facts that scientists utilize to interpret the data currently collected. Tomorrow there may be new facts that will lead to the current theory being circular filed (abandoned) and a new theory will take it's place. Therefore a 'theory' is not a 'fact' it is a amalgamation of facts brought together to come up with an interpretation or assumption.

How do you know that some ancient astronaut didn't rely a story of what his/her/its people discovered about the universe to Moses or some other religious fellow and what came about was a story about how everything was created?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science aims to learn more about everything through processes while Religion just promises straight answers, even if they're completely illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I state anywhere in this thread that I belonged to some sort of standard religion?
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's up to the person that thinks God exists to prove it, do we need to go back to the teapot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall we go back to your faith that something unknown somehow kick started the universe some 13.82 billion years ago?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> His point was that people invented Gods to explain things that they had no knowledge of at the time, Gods don't actually give you any answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God gives me all sorts of answers if I ask the right questions.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science actually gives logical explanations with evidence and no magic, so it's better to believe it than religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a scientist and/or have a firm background in science?
> 
> OR
> 
> Are you one of those that has faith when you say there is a 100% or 99% or 81% or 66% scientific consensus on the matter?
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you quit spamming the thread with music videos and ***CHUCKLE***? You look like an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 79785
> 
> No!
> 
> Could you learn not to be so discriminating and bigoted about other peoples posts and style?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Telling you to quit spamming the page with music videos and childish behavior isn't bigotry. That's not a style, it's what a 12 year old does on forums.

Believing the Big Bang isn't a faith. Faith is believing something without evidence, and all we know is that something happened, but we don't know what so we have no reason to believe anything specific right now. 

Saying your God gives you answers is completely useless information and has nothing to do with what you were responding too.

I've researched the Scientific models of evolution, the Big Bang and other important stuff. I would say I am well educated.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Telling you to quit spamming the page with music videos and childish behavior isn't bigotry. That's not a style, it's what a 12 year old does on forums.



Says the person who can't handle diversity.



Epitah said:


> Believing the Big Bang isn't a faith. Faith is believing something without evidence,...



Is it now?



Epitah said:


> ...and all we know is that something happened, but we don't know what so we have no reason to believe anything specific right now.



Sounds like faith to me.



Epitah said:


> Saying your God gives you answers is completely useless information and has nothing to do with what you were responding too.



Says the person who has no clue to as to what my beliefs are.



Epitah said:


> I've researched the Scientific models of evolution, the Big Bang and other important stuff. I would say I am well educated.



Most eighth graders can supposedly claim that... And yet you consider a theory to be a fact.






Hallelujah to scientific consensus!

Has the god of global warming wrote death and destruction to all the earth yet?

"But then you don't like music now do ya?"...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling you to quit spamming the page with music videos and childish behavior isn't bigotry. That's not a style, it's what a 12 year old does on forums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who can't handle diversity.
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believing the Big Bang isn't a faith. Faith is believing something without evidence,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it now?
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and all we know is that something happened, but we don't know what so we have no reason to believe anything specific right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like faith to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying your God gives you answers is completely useless information and has nothing to do with what you were responding too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the person who has no clue to as to what my beliefs are.
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've researched the Scientific models of evolution, the Big Bang and other important stuff. I would say I am well educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most eighth graders can supposedly claim that... And yet you consider a theory to be a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hallelujah to scientific consensus!
> 
> Has the god of global warming wrote death and destruction to all the earth yet?
> 
> "But then you don't like music now do ya?"...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Apparently not liking shitposting is anti-diversity. What?

Believing the Big Bang happened isn't faith. Believing in a god is faith because you are believing something is true without actual evidence. Nobody is asserting what or how the Big Bang happened, thus there can be no faith. If something didn't cause the Big Bang then the only alternative is that the universe has just always existed in this state, which we know isn't true.

A scientific theory is different from how the word theory is commonly used by people. A scientific theory actually means established fact, I really wish they'd quit calling it a theory so people would quit getting it messed up and using that as a really weak argument against established science.

At this point you're just going on about unrelated topics and shitposting more music videos.


----------



## yiostheoy

Damaged Eagle said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the people who have responded here are confused by the issue of the difference between Philosophy (which most people know nothing about), Religion (which 10% do not believe anything about), and Science (which most people -- 75% -- have made their Religion).
> 
> You all need to keep these 3 activities in 3 separate baskets.
> 
> Aristotle came up with the "Prime Mover" philosophical argument.  He spent a lot of time stargazing and thus he was most impressed with the motion of the planets, moon, comets, and meteors in the night sky.
> 
> Aquinas came up with the "First Cause" philosophical argument, and from this two other arguments have arisen -- Artistic Artificer and also Purposeful Designer, depending on your philosophical aesthetics and also your philosophy of history.
> 
> The O/P has simply plagiarized "First Cause" and is presenting it has his own idea.  It has been 800 years however since Aquinas first published it.  It is a strong and valid argument and forces us to live with a dilemma one way or the other -- either Something has existed forever and this is the First Cause -- God.  Or else there is no explanation for where everything came from.
> 
> Religion cannot answer the issue because religion is simply dogmatic and as such it would be an affirmation of the consequent to try and make it be the explanation.
> 
> Science cannot answer the issue either because science is simply an Empirical process which detects and observes data and infers common rules triggering them.
> 
> The two most common mistakes with this issue are (1) to assume religion answers the issue or (2) to assume science answers it.
> 
> The underlying problem is simply lack of education in Philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The underlying problem here is not understanding what the OP believes about the nature of the universe.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

With 7 billion people on the planet nobody is going to care what you believe.

That you stole it from Tomas Aquinas and plagiarized it to make yourself look smart is more telling about your own lack of ethics and lack of morality.

Q.E.D.


----------



## HUGGY

james bond said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
Click to expand...


Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.

If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.  

The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Apparently not liking shitposting is anti-diversity. What?



Yeah! That's really telling me how it is.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> Believing the Big Bang happened isn't faith. Believing in a god is faith because you are believing something is true without actual evidence. Nobody is asserting what or how the Big Bang happened, thus there can be no faith. If something didn't cause the Big Bang then the only alternative is that the universe has just always existed in this state, which we know isn't true.



I see, hear, feel, and all that, my God every day. So why do I need faith to believe in God?

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> A scientific theory is different from how the word theory is commonly used by people. A scientific theory actually means established fact, I really wish they'd quit calling it a theory so people would quit getting it messed up and using that as a really weak argument against established science.



If you're on Jeopardy don't play the column labeled 'Scientific Method'.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> At this point you're just going on about unrelated topics and shitposting more music videos.



At this point I've determined you know little to nothing about science, most especially the scientific method, and only want to prolong this because you don't know any better.







*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

yiostheoy said:


> With 7 billion people on the planet nobody is going to care what you believe.
> 
> That you stole it from Tomas Aquinas and plagiarized it to make yourself look smart is more telling about your own lack of ethics and lack of morality.
> 
> Q.E.D.








Says the person who refuses to read the thread much less find out what my beliefs are.

Tell me something...

How does a Pantheist separate his/her beliefs about God from that of science as you attempt to hold a teapot over his worldview/universeview?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Mutations are real. Some help and some don't. If they hurt your species dies off. If it helps your kind thrives.



Well, we agree that mutations are real, but mutations are negative or neutral.  Of course, atheists and their scientists will not admit it or else evolution ends up negative.  Just now, I was reading atheists are programmed to die.

"Growing old is a fact of life. And there’s no mistaking it, given the increased fatigue, weakened bones, and ill health that generally accompany aging. Indeed, age is the number one risk factor for myriad diseases, including Alzheimer’s, cancer, cataracts, and macular degeneration. And while researchers are making progress in understanding and treating each of these ailments, huge gaps remain in our understanding of the aging process itself.

“We age so completely and in so many different ways,” says *stem cell biologist Derrick Rossi of Harvard University. “We are programmed to die.”*






AS TIME GOES BY: Aging is the outcome of diverse and complex changes in normal biological functions, from the accumulation of DNA damage to dysfunction of proteins and altered communication both within cells and among distant tissues in the body. Researchers are beginning to piece together how we age at the level of our genomes, our cells, and our whole bodies, in hopes of identifying strategies for slowing decline and extending healthy life span.

The aging process can be traced down to the level of cells, which themselves die or enter senescence as they age, and even to the genomic level. Accumulation of mutations and impairments in DNA repair processes are highly associated with symptoms of aging. In fact, disorders that cause premature aging are typically caused by mutations in genes involved in the maintenance of our DNA. And at the cellular level, decreases in stem cells’ proliferative abilities, impairments in mitochondrial function, and proneness to protein misfolding can all contribute to aging. As scientists continue to detail these various processes, says Paul Robbins of the Scripps Research Institute, “the big question is, ‘At what step along all these pathways is the best place to intervene to try to promote healthy aging?’”

While diverse strategies—from caloric restriction to genetic manipulation—have proven to extend life span in model organisms in the lab, these animals are not necessarily enjoying longer periods of health. (See “Quantity or Quality?”) In the end, researchers studying aging must learn not just how to extend life, but how to prevent age-related disease and physical decline."

Full article here
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42280/title/How-We-Age/

*Will you allow yourself to be mutated in order to live longer?*

Speaking for Christians, no thank you.  We'll extend our lives in other scientific ways.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations are real. Some help and some don't. If they hurt your species dies off. If it helps your kind thrives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we agree that mutations are real, but mutations are negative or neutral.  Of course, atheists and their scientists will not admit it or else evolution ends up negative.  Just now, I was reading atheists are programmed to die.
> 
> "Growing old is a fact of life. And there’s no mistaking it, given the increased fatigue, weakened bones, and ill health that generally accompany aging. Indeed, age is the number one risk factor for myriad diseases, including Alzheimer’s, cancer, cataracts, and macular degeneration. And while researchers are making progress in understanding and treating each of these ailments, huge gaps remain in our understanding of the aging process itself.
> 
> “We age so completely and in so many different ways,” says *stem cell biologist Derrick Rossi of Harvard University. “We are programmed to die.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AS TIME GOES BY: Aging is the outcome of diverse and complex changes in normal biological functions, from the accumulation of DNA damage to dysfunction of proteins and altered communication both within cells and among distant tissues in the body. Researchers are beginning to piece together how we age at the level of our genomes, our cells, and our whole bodies, in hopes of identifying strategies for slowing decline and extending healthy life span.
> 
> The aging process can be traced down to the level of cells, which themselves die or enter senescence as they age, and even to the genomic level. Accumulation of mutations and impairments in DNA repair processes are highly associated with symptoms of aging. In fact, disorders that cause premature aging are typically caused by mutations in genes involved in the maintenance of our DNA. And at the cellular level, decreases in stem cells’ proliferative abilities, impairments in mitochondrial function, and proneness to protein misfolding can all contribute to aging. As scientists continue to detail these various processes, says Paul Robbins of the Scripps Research Institute, “the big question is, ‘At what step along all these pathways is the best place to intervene to try to promote healthy aging?’”
> 
> While diverse strategies—from caloric restriction to genetic manipulation—have proven to extend life span in model organisms in the lab, these animals are not necessarily enjoying longer periods of health. (See “Quantity or Quality?”) In the end, researchers studying aging must learn not just how to extend life, but how to prevent age-related disease and physical decline."
> 
> Full article here
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42280/title/How-We-Age/
> 
> *Will you allow yourself to be mutated in order to live longer?*
> 
> Speaking for Christians, no thank you.  We'll extend our lives in other scientific ways.
Click to expand...


DNA copying and proof-reading machines are not perfect, so copying mistakes arise: mutations. Tyson says: “most mutations are harmless, some are deadly.” Actually, most mutations are bad–near-neutral: very slightly harmful mutations that will not be eliminated by natural selection.20 So like tiny rust spots on a car, they accumulate through the gene pool. This contrasts with major damage that can be noticed and repaired, such as a flat tyre, smashed headlights, worn brakepads, or natural selection removing the very bad mutants. Eventually, as rust can eventually build up till it causes structural damage, these mutations would have resulted in genetic meltdown after even hundreds of thousands of years.21

These mutations are accumulating much faster than previously thought. The lead researcher in human mutation rates, evolutionary geneticist Alexey Simonovich Kondrashov (Алексе́й Симо́нович Кондрашо́в, 1957– ), based on his belief that humans have been around for that long, asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?”22 He thinks that the mutation rate could be even higher, as much as 300 per person per generation,23 although a more recent “Icelandic study[24] found that on average, every newborn baby has 36 spontaneous new mutations, those not inherited from either parent.”25 This level, if confirmed, would still be a huge problem for the long-age viewpoint that Tyson dogmatically pontificates.

Cosmos Neil deGrasse Tyson Episode 2 - creation.com


----------



## james bond

Epitah said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then?  Ha ha.
> 
> The Big Bang is still a theory.  Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end.  It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.
> 
> The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator).  It more closely backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang Theory is a fact, and it's not an explosion of smoke and fire, it's an expansion of the universe. And that's how Science works, we alter our ideas and theories based on new information to reflect reality as accurately as possible, it's called the Scientific method. And no, The Big Bang doesn't back up the Bible at all, lol. The Bible says the universe and the Earth was created in a few days, that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


If BBT is a fact, then we should all know it and be able to use it.  It backs up Genesis just fine as shown in the video I posted.  However, God created the universe instead of BBT.  The evidence is there, but atheists will not admit it nor allow the God Theory as it destroys evolution.  

In fact, you even called Big Bang a theory in your first sentence, so atheists are wrong again.  Ha ha.

The Big Bang Theory does involve and explosion and heat, so that would mean fire and smoke.  We have the quantum particles all around us.  Why can't I get a small universe from a firecracker?


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not explode a firecracker and create a small model of a universe then?  Ha ha.
> 
> The Big Bang is still a theory.  Before that, atheist scientists thought the universe was eternal with no beginning and end.  It was called the Steady State Theory and is now pseudoscience.
> 
> The Big Bang is closer to what Genesis stated (except replace the bang with a creator).  It more closely backs up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang Theory is a fact, and it's not an explosion of smoke and fire, it's an expansion of the universe. And that's how Science works, we alter our ideas and theories based on new information to reflect reality as accurately as possible, it's called the Scientific method. And no, The Big Bang doesn't back up the Bible at all, lol. The Bible says the universe and the Earth was created in a few days, that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If BBT is a fact, then we should all know it and be able to use it.  It backs up Genesis just fine as shown in the video I posted.  However, God created the universe instead of BBT.  The evidence is there, but atheists will not admit it nor allow the God Theory as it destroys evolution.
> 
> In fact, you even called Big Bang a theory in your first sentence, so atheists are wrong again.  Ha ha.
> 
> The Big Bang Theory does involve and explosion and heat, so that would mean fire and smoke.  We have the quantum particles all around us.  Why can't I get a small universe from a firecracker?
Click to expand...

Isn't that why we don't set off nuclear bombs in outer space?  You are a firecracker.  LOL.

God is not a theory.  Certainly not a scientific one.  At best God is a hypothesis.  

*Theory* is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

Last night on PBS they had a show about ancient Greece.  They explained how at one time anytime a natural disaster happened they would always say, "must be god".  That's not a theory, right?  Then came along some smart Greeks who stopped blaming Zeus or Poseiden for all their woes and they started thinking scientifically.  That's when theories started.  This is 500 years before your made up Jesus stories of virgin births and walking on water.  But the Greek god believers were very imaginative too.  They had their own hypothesis'


----------



## james bond

HUGGY said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
Click to expand...


Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.

It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.

What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought of a good experiment, forkup, since you have faith in evolution and how natural selection will take the *positive* mutations and make you faster, stronger, and healthier.  Eat more GMO foods.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson says they are perfectly safe for you and could be beneficial in having stronger bones, adding years to your life and allow you to be more productive with less sleep.  That's much better than coming down with cancer, isn't it?  Another would be Craig Venter.  He deserves to be infected with his oil-eating molecules.
> 
> I talked about the following with a person who enjoys smoking marijuana.  He told me that a man, forgot his name, crossbred marijuana seeds to make a more potent plant, i.e. one with more THC.  Now, that is the natural way in producing a better plant and natural selection at work.  Not to be outdone, evo scientists modified the DNA of a potent marijuana strain and created GMO marijuana and promoted it as being better.  I'm not a marijuana user, but I would avoid the GMO version unless you enjoy dealing with cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument.* Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're trying to use hypermobility in a positive way and while it certainly can be useful in sports, it usually is a negative mutation as people born with it are destined to be affected with some form of disease.  Hypermobile joints are common in those with Down's Syndrome.  Does Michael Phelps have some problems with health or illness?  I'm not going to get into skin color as I think that's a genetic trait and not a mutation.  Very easy to get into racism and Darwin was racist in his beliefs and statements.
> 
> If you can't defend abiogenesis, then DNA and RNA did not start from chemicals.  It is evidence for creation.  Then, there is the huge problem of how energy and our universe was started by quantum particles in a system where energy is always conserved.
> 
> I am purposely not using more advanced science because you have not shown the background in your posts to be able to understand it.  Otherwise, you would have told me about more complex discoveries and have used the scientific jargon.
> 
> You'll have to explain your use of the two ways some more.  The two ways you are referring to are 1)  Accidents during processes such as genetic replication, recombination or transposition and 2) Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.
> 
> I answered the use of the two ways in microevolution.  I thought we agreed on that and natural selection?  What other context are you using it in?
> 
> I do not think we can stop mutations.  That's just part of life.  We can lessen it, but that means getting rid of atheist scientists and evolution.  They have it in their heads that mutations can be positive and its part of evolution.  Obviously, you missed this in all the things I mentioned with GMO foods and cells.  Atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is very supportive of GMO foods and cells.  I hope he gets infected in the near future so he can understand GMO for himself first-hand.  Does he practice what he preaches and eat many GMO foods because they're bigger and less expensive than organic?
> 
> I didn't answer your other two posts because we're really not getting very far.  Give me one experiment like the one I made up to explain creation and complexity, and one to explain evolution and simplicity.  Despite all the evidence, you're not changing any of your thinking.  Just bringing up something else and claiming that I'm the one who fights what I can fight and ignoring what I can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far you have given me that microevolution is a fact. You have also admitted to natural selection. What you do not seem to get, that there is no such thing as microevolution, evolution doesn't stop. Any organism is under continuus pressure from it's enviremont. So any organism has to adapt constantly. This results in minute changes but  over millenia constant minute changes result in a completly different organism. The only way a person, who admits to evolution on a small scale and natural selection, can deny evolution on a large scale. Is if he would claim. There are 2 different types of DNA, 1 that changes and one that doesn't or if he would insist that for some reason at a certain point DNA would stop changing. That's my point. Btw I've found another very intresting mutation. Most people from European decent are lactose tolarant, this is a result because in aggrarian society with emphasis on herding being able to digest milk was a big advantage.
> As to your argument of me not defending abiogenesis is proof of God. Only a religious person would think that not being able to proof something is proof of something else. Religion through the ages has tried to give a supernatural explanation to everything. From the sun the moon and the stars, to rain, drought, thunder and lightning. They have been proven wrong by science every time. This is the exact reason why Creationism is not a science. It revels in the fact that science doesn't know everything and activly discourages to accept any other explanation as the divine. In short, it tries to kill curiosity, wich is the driving force behind science,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microevolution is natural selection.  Neither are facts.  In fact, I have not given it to you as a fact.  We conclude natural selection from the facts, such as the changes of a finch's beak.  It is the best theory we have to explain what happens when life changes.  It is the diversity of life.  So, are you agreeing that it is not a mutation?  Skin color is not a mutation because that is what is intended to happen.  Mutation would be an organism that does not change by natural selection.  Can you think of life that does not change?  Even the most simplest of life has changed.  Buddhists state life is change.
> 
> Let's stop with the discussion on mutation.  You can not admit that I am right and you just move on to something else.  We are not communicating and it's extremely boring.  Moreover, you have not explained nor given an experiment where life is created from molecules as you stated (your experiment stated with a living organism and its DNA and RNA.  You did not know the answer to what is a simple cell -- algae or bacteria.
> 
> Let's just stop with our discussion altogether.  I never met anyone who is so stubborn in their beliefs that they will not admit when someone else has provided better points than them.
> 
> For those who are smart enough to understand mutation, if it is positive, then we should see some results such as more bone density, i.e. stronger bones, we can sleep less hours and be productive, our immune system will be able to better resist disease and infection and our mortality will be going up, our endurance will be better, our bodies will be stronger and we can demonstrate this by measuring our strength, and we will have better memories.
> 
> We are done
Click to expand...

Only you James can backtrack his statements, say lets stop talking and declare yourself the winner of the discussion. "Microevolution is natural selection." That's a ridiculous statement. One is the consequence of the other, and regardless it doesn't change 1 iota of the fact, that you can't admit to species changing a little bit but object to species changing a lot. And you have admitted to species changing a bunch of times. Genetics and common sense doesn't allow the process of changing to stop. And you can bluster, trying to change the focus to semantics of the definition of mutations and even want to stop talking. I all points to the same fact. You my dear James, have destroyed your own argument against evolution and that is that. And btw if you are a bacteria and you are able to withstand all antibiotics. I suspect that you will call the mutation that allows you to do that positive.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> DNA copying and proof-reading machines are not perfect, so copying mistakes arise: mutations. Tyson says: “most mutations are harmless, some are deadly.” Actually, most mutations are bad–near-neutral: very slightly harmful mutations that will not be eliminated by natural selection.20 So like tiny rust spots on a car, they accumulate through the gene pool. This contrasts with major damage that can be noticed and repaired, such as a flat tyre, smashed headlights, worn brakepads, or natural selection removing the very bad mutants. Eventually, as rust can eventually build up till it causes structural damage, these mutations would have resulted in genetic meltdown after even hundreds of thousands of years.21
> 
> These mutations are accumulating much faster than previously thought. The lead researcher in human mutation rates, evolutionary geneticist Alexey Simonovich Kondrashov (Алексе́й Симо́нович Кондрашо́в, 1957– ), based on his belief that humans have been around for that long, asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?”22 He thinks that the mutation rate could be even higher, as much as 300 per person per generation,23 although a more recent “Icelandic study[24] found that on average, every newborn baby has 36 spontaneous new mutations, those not inherited from either parent.”25 This level, if confirmed, would still be a huge problem for the long-age viewpoint that Tyson dogmatically pontificates.
> 
> Cosmos Neil deGrasse Tyson Episode 2 - creation.com



DeGrasse states that mutations are deadly, so he is correct in that sense, but is wrong that slightly harmful mutations will be factored out by natural selection.  Where does he give an actual experiment to show it?  Instead he uses an analogy about rust and a car.  Rust can spread very fast.

Creation scientists differ on mutations, and whether there is a  loss or change in genetic information.  Some believe that a true mutation is a loss of genetic information.  Others believe the mutations could be changes in genetic information such as that with natural selection and diversification of life.  My thinking is that it was set up for change from the beginning by God, so change of genetic information with no loss isn't a mutation.  Else we should see more positive results from the change of genetic information.  Aside from natural selection, I can't think of any change to genetic information that isn't a loss.

I can't argue with those who say a loss is also a change, but the results should be clear with a loss and many observations confirm this as negative or neutral.  Can diversification be considered neutral?

What about a gain in genetic information?  I do not think this happens although atheist scientists believe it can happen through evolution.  I'll keep an open mind about it, but this has not been observed and I would think this is what God did.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA copying and proof-reading machines are not perfect, so copying mistakes arise: mutations. Tyson says: “most mutations are harmless, some are deadly.” Actually, most mutations are bad–near-neutral: very slightly harmful mutations that will not be eliminated by natural selection.20 So like tiny rust spots on a car, they accumulate through the gene pool. This contrasts with major damage that can be noticed and repaired, such as a flat tyre, smashed headlights, worn brakepads, or natural selection removing the very bad mutants. Eventually, as rust can eventually build up till it causes structural damage, these mutations would have resulted in genetic meltdown after even hundreds of thousands of years.21
> 
> These mutations are accumulating much faster than previously thought. The lead researcher in human mutation rates, evolutionary geneticist Alexey Simonovich Kondrashov (Алексе́й Симо́нович Кондрашо́в, 1957– ), based on his belief that humans have been around for that long, asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?”22 He thinks that the mutation rate could be even higher, as much as 300 per person per generation,23 although a more recent “Icelandic study[24] found that on average, every newborn baby has 36 spontaneous new mutations, those not inherited from either parent.”25 This level, if confirmed, would still be a huge problem for the long-age viewpoint that Tyson dogmatically pontificates.
> 
> Cosmos Neil deGrasse Tyson Episode 2 - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DeGrasse states that mutations are deadly, so he is correct in that sense, but is wrong that slightly harmful mutations will be factored out by natural selection.  Where does he give an actual experiment to show it?  Instead he uses an analogy about rust and a car.  Rust can spread very fast.
> 
> Creation scientists differ on mutations, and whether there is a  loss or change in genetic information.  Some believe that a true mutation is a loss of genetic information.  Others believe the mutations could be changes in genetic information such as that with natural selection and diversification of life.  My thinking is that it was set up for change from the beginning by God, so change of genetic information with no loss isn't a mutation.  Else we should see more positive results from the change of genetic information.  Aside from natural selection, I can't think of any change to genetic information that isn't a loss.
> 
> I can't argue with those who say a loss is also a change, but the results should be clear with a loss and many observations confirm this as negative or neutral.  Can diversification be considered neutral?
> 
> What about a gain in genetic information?  I do not think this happens although atheist scientists believe it can happen through evolution.  I'll keep an open mind about it, but this has not been observed and I would think this is what God did.
Click to expand...

 No he said most mutations are harmless, some are deadly


----------



## HUGGY

james bond said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
Click to expand...


That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.  

I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.


----------



## BreezeWood

HUGGY said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
Click to expand...

.


HUGGY said:


> That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.






> Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
> 
> *Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.*
> 
> The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....


_*
Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...

*_
sound familiar ...

.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA copying and proof-reading machines are not perfect, so copying mistakes arise: mutations. Tyson says: “most mutations are harmless, some are deadly.” Actually, most mutations are bad–near-neutral: very slightly harmful mutations that will not be eliminated by natural selection.20 So like tiny rust spots on a car, they accumulate through the gene pool. This contrasts with major damage that can be noticed and repaired, such as a flat tyre, smashed headlights, worn brakepads, or natural selection removing the very bad mutants. Eventually, as rust can eventually build up till it causes structural damage, these mutations would have resulted in genetic meltdown after even hundreds of thousands of years.21
> 
> These mutations are accumulating much faster than previously thought. The lead researcher in human mutation rates, evolutionary geneticist Alexey Simonovich Kondrashov (Алексе́й Симо́нович Кондрашо́в, 1957– ), based on his belief that humans have been around for that long, asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?”22 He thinks that the mutation rate could be even higher, as much as 300 per person per generation,23 although a more recent “Icelandic study[24] found that on average, every newborn baby has 36 spontaneous new mutations, those not inherited from either parent.”25 This level, if confirmed, would still be a huge problem for the long-age viewpoint that Tyson dogmatically pontificates.
> 
> Cosmos Neil deGrasse Tyson Episode 2 - creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DeGrasse states that mutations are deadly, so he is correct in that sense, but is wrong that slightly harmful mutations will be factored out by natural selection.  Where does he give an actual experiment to show it?  Instead he uses an analogy about rust and a car.  Rust can spread very fast.
> 
> Creation scientists differ on mutations, and whether there is a  loss or change in genetic information.  Some believe that a true mutation is a loss of genetic information.  Others believe the mutations could be changes in genetic information such as that with natural selection and diversification of life.  My thinking is that it was set up for change from the beginning by God, so change of genetic information with no loss isn't a mutation.  Else we should see more positive results from the change of genetic information.  Aside from natural selection, I can't think of any change to genetic information that isn't a loss.
> 
> I can't argue with those who say a loss is also a change, but the results should be clear with a loss and many observations confirm this as negative or neutral.  Can diversification be considered neutral?
> 
> What about a gain in genetic information?  I do not think this happens although atheist scientists believe it can happen through evolution.  I'll keep an open mind about it, but this has not been observed and I would think this is what God did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he said most mutations are harmless, some are deadly
Click to expand...


Yes, but did he provide any experiments to show his theory that "slightly harmful" mutations will be factored out by natural selection?  Of course not, and I explained why.

When he said, "slightly harmful" read that to mean negative.  It can be very harmful as we have seen in the examples of atheist scientists and their GMO foods and organisms.  People like Tyson, atheist scientists and atheist university professors are being funded by these companies that stand to make a profit from gene patenting.  This program was funded by a grant from the Exxon Corporation.  There are others.  These people have their minions on this board who have been brainwashed into thinking this is the way to go and to speak against creation and creation scientists who know better.


----------



## james bond

HUGGY said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
Click to expand...


It takes money to make money and to fight the atheist scientists and to fight for the teaching of creation in schools.  Most of these donations are from individuals instead of corporations who stand to make profit by patenting their genetic modifications.  Churches today have to teach creation using science, as well.  Back to evolution, who better to foist on a public that has swallowed evolution "science" hook, like and sinker?  Monsanto's slogan used to be "Better Living through Chemistry."  It appears you have been brainwashed by their advertising and media articles just the same.

So what do the Mormons believe as you claimed?  In the end, atheists and their scientists will realize that they'll just get what they have been spewing their entire lives and it won't get them anywhere.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
> 
> *Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.*
> 
> The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
> 
> *_
> sound familiar ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yes your comment does sound familiar.  Very familiar.  Atheist familiar.  

It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not.  Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about?  It was already mentioned in this thread several times.  Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin?  He did not know what perfection was until it was gone.  Why else do we admire and seek perfection?  You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes money to make money and to fight the atheist scientists and to fight for the teaching of creation in schools.  Most of these donations are from individuals instead of corporations who stand to make profit by patenting their genetic modifications.  Churches today have to teach creation using science, as well.  Back to evolution, who better to foist on a public that has swallowed evolution "science" hook, like and sinker?  Monsanto's slogan used to be "Better Living through Chemistry."  It appears you have been brainwashed by their advertising and media articles just the same.
> 
> So what do the Mormons believe as you claimed?  In the end, atheists and their scientists will realize that they'll just get what they have been spewing their entire lives and it won't get them anywhere.
Click to expand...

In the end we'll end up just like you. What happens to a frogs soul when it dies? How about a crows? Or an elephant. Where does an elephants soul go? Same place yours goes.

Remember what it was like for you ten years before you were born? That's what things will be like for you the minute you die. Lights out


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
> 
> *Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.*
> 
> The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
> 
> *_
> sound familiar ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes your comment does sound familiar.  Very familiar.  Atheist familiar.
> 
> It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not.  Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about?  It was already mentioned in this thread several times.  Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin?  He did not know what perfection was until it was gone.  Why else do we admire and seek perfection?  You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character



LOL.

Not really.  That's the whole point, isn't it?

It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.

If one looks at science and how the universe started, we get the story of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).  <Imitating Morgan Freeman's voice> "This is the Large Hadron Collider machine we spent billions on in order to unlock the secrets of the *universe*.  *It will tell us what happened*."

What it will tell us is how we can build a better nuclear bomb and maybe find a cheaper form of energy or quantum energy.  There won't be a black hole created nor another universe nor a small model of one.  I already gave you my science thought experiment to show otherwise.  You could have saved the billions of dollars spent.  Ha ha.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
> 
> *Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.*
> 
> The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
> 
> *_
> sound familiar ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes your comment does sound familiar.  Very familiar.  Atheist familiar.
> 
> It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not.  Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about?  It was already mentioned in this thread several times.  Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin?  He did not know what perfection was until it was gone.  Why else do we admire and seek perfection?  You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> He did not know what perfection was until it was gone.



no christian, when it was gone_ they_ still did not know what perfection is, if not necessarily _their_ fault non the less it then became the burden for all humanity not as a sin but a gift from the Almighty to learn or perish.




james bond said:


> People like Tyson, atheist scientists and atheist university professors ...



that's what is all to familiar - and your lack of contrition for the past history of your spiteful religion.

.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> In the end we'll end up just like you. What happens to a frogs soul when it dies? How about a crows? Or an elephant. Where does an elephants soul go? Same place yours goes.
> 
> Remember what it was like for you ten years before you were born? That's what things will be like for you the minute you die. Lights out



Frogs and elephants go to heaven.  Not sure about crows.

We'll have to see what happens.  The minute you die, consciousness still remains until you cross over into the beyond.  During that time, my theory is you'll get what you've been believing in your worldview and thinking.  From here, you have to choose where to go and atheists will be wrong 100%.  Otherwise, why have such a short life when we have a beautiful Earth and universe to discover?


----------



## james bond

So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.

By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.


----------



## OZman

james bond said:


> By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.



You have dispensed with rational thinking by citing mystical texts as literal truths.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Not really.  That's the whole point, isn't it?
> 
> It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.
> 
> If one looks at science and how the universe started, we get the story of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).  <Imitating Morgan Freeman's voice> "This is the Large Hadron Collider machine we spent billions on in order to unlock the secrets of the *universe*.  *It will tell us what happened*."
> 
> What it will tell us is how we can build a better nuclear bomb and maybe find a cheaper form of energy or quantum energy.  There won't be a black hole created nor another universe nor a small model of one.  I already gave you my science thought experiment to show otherwise.  You could have saved the billions of dollars spent.  Ha ha.
Click to expand...

Travel 15 billion light years out and we reach the edge of our little universe. But there's an infinite amount of space beyond our universe. Probably like a lava lamp there are other universes. There is so much you don't know and never will. It's cute how special you think you are. 

Why did God first put tardigrade on earth for a billion years then dinosaurs for a billion years then apes for 1 million years then finally settle on very flawed humans who he sends to hell? So silly


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end we'll end up just like you. What happens to a frogs soul when it dies? How about a crows? Or an elephant. Where does an elephants soul go? Same place yours goes.
> 
> Remember what it was like for you ten years before you were born? That's what things will be like for you the minute you die. Lights out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frogs and elephants go to heaven.  Not sure about crows.
> 
> We'll have to see what happens.  The minute you die, consciousness still remains until you cross over into the beyond.  During that time, my theory is you'll get what you've been believing in your worldview and thinking.  From here, you have to choose where to go and atheists will be wrong 100%.  Otherwise, why have such a short life when we have a beautiful Earth and universe to discover?
Click to expand...

You mean your hypothesis not theory.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.
> 
> By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.


Those are the only two possibilities?


----------



## HUGGY

james bond said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy?  How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith?  Fear of death driven rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes money to make money and to fight the atheist scientists and to fight for the teaching of creation in schools.  Most of these donations are from individuals instead of corporations who stand to make profit by patenting their genetic modifications.  Churches today have to teach creation using science, as well.  Back to evolution, who better to foist on a public that has swallowed evolution "science" hook, like and sinker?  Monsanto's slogan used to be "Better Living through Chemistry."  It appears you have been brainwashed by their advertising and media articles just the same.
> 
> So what do the Mormons believe as you claimed?  In the end, atheists and their scientists will realize that they'll just get what they have been spewing their entire lives and it won't get them anywhere.
Click to expand...


No one is going "anywhere".


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are facts.  I did notice there were some facts provided here, but not in your statements.  I could just as easily stated no one has proven that the Creator (God) does not exist.
> 
> What is the death driven rubbish?
> 
> We do not know what happens after death in the sense that it cannot be proven scientifically.  We do know that one is still conscious in the near-death state.  From there, one can be clinically dead and still be conscious.  That goes against what the atheists said about death and that it is the end of everything.  That there is no final judgment.  This short life of ours is it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes money to make money and to fight the atheist scientists and to fight for the teaching of creation in schools.  Most of these donations are from individuals instead of corporations who stand to make profit by patenting their genetic modifications.  Churches today have to teach creation using science, as well.  Back to evolution, who better to foist on a public that has swallowed evolution "science" hook, like and sinker?  Monsanto's slogan used to be "Better Living through Chemistry."  It appears you have been brainwashed by their advertising and media articles just the same.
> 
> So what do the Mormons believe as you claimed?  In the end, atheists and their scientists will realize that they'll just get what they have been spewing their entire lives and it won't get them anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end we'll end up just like you. What happens to a frogs soul when it dies? How about a crows? Or an elephant. Where does an elephants soul go? Same place yours goes.
> 
> Remember what it was like for you ten years before you were born? That's what things will be like for you the minute you die. Lights out
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
> 
> *Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.*
> 
> The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
> 
> *_
> sound familiar ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes your comment does sound familiar.  Very familiar.  Atheist familiar.
> 
> It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not.  Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about?  It was already mentioned in this thread several times.  Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin?  He did not know what perfection was until it was gone.  Why else do we admire and seek perfection?  You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
Click to expand...


I find it especially interesting that this fool throws around the word "brainwashed".  His brain was sent to the dry cleaners!


----------



## HUGGY

james bond said:


> So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.
> 
> By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.



...........


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> I see, hear, feel, and all that, my God every day. So why do I need faith to believe in God?
> 
> At this point I've determined you know little to nothing about science, most especially the scientific method, and only want to prolong this because you don't know any better.



Unless you can verify what you hear and feel as real and not just emotions you attribute to your god, then it's faith.

You saying I don't know the scientific method seems like projection to me. Not only have you not even explained how I don't understand, but if anything you're the one that has proven that you don't understand why we don't accept old ideas even though models change based on new information.

What is with Christians and music videos? They just seem to be naturally drawn to posting music videos in place of an actual argument, it's a bizarre and comedic phenomenon I've seen in more places than one. Posting them and spamming ***CHUCKLE*** isn't stylistic, the only thing it changes about your writing is that it makes it look like it comes from a little kid who just got a computer. It's like if I said the reaction gif I posted below is a stylistic choice.



james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.
Click to expand...








the day science verifies the bible is the day pigs fly and mole people enslave humanity


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.
> 
> By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the only two possibilities?
Click to expand...


You could make up your own, but they're the two best theories and I think one is far above the other.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.
> 
> By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the only two possibilities?
Click to expand...


sealybobo james bond

There is the presentation of the universe as self existing, with no beginning and no end. And this is still consistent with the concept of an eternal/infinite God and/or existence of universal/natural laws that we can study and  use but may or may not be able to prove (but agree that they exist and how to express these laws).

There is the idea that the laws and truth about life and how the world works "is out there" but since humans do not have infinite capacity to perceive much less capture all this in words/finite terms, then we use RELATIVE symbols to express the points, concepts, principles and relationships.

Neither of these approaches has to negate or exclude either theist or nontheist perspectives or expressions in describing what's going on in the world.

There is no need to become defensive or attack differences with one another that are going to exist anyway.


----------



## james bond

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, hear, feel, and all that, my God every day. So why do I need faith to believe in God?
> 
> At this point I've determined you know little to nothing about science, most especially the scientific method, and only want to prolong this because you don't know any better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you can verify what you hear and feel as real and not just emotions you attribute to your god, then it's faith.
> 
> You saying I don't know the scientific method seems like projection to me. Not only have you not even explained how I don't understand, but if anything you're the one that has proven that you don't understand why we don't accept old ideas even though models change based on new information.
> 
> What is with Christians and music videos? They just seem to be naturally drawn to posting music videos in place of an actual argument, it's a bizarre and comedic phenomenon I've seen in more places than one. Posting them and spamming ***CHUCKLE*** isn't stylistic, the only thing it changes about your writing is that it makes it look like it comes from a little kid who just got a computer. It's like if I said the reaction gif I posted below is a stylistic choice.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the day science verifies the bible is the day pigs fly and mole people enslave humanity
Click to expand...


As I have been saying all along, atheists are usually wrong.  Here is another case.  What you claim just goes to show you know very little about truth and the Bible.  It's the most read and most famous book in the world selling over 5 BILLION copies.  One of the reasons is science backs it up.  Other reasons are for moral strength and guidance in times of need.  It can help turnaround one's life.  The atheist books cannot hold a candle to it.  Probably Richard Dawkins writes his books so he can continue paying his ex-wife.  Science has verified many things in the Bible.  For one, atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe with no beginning and end.  It was the Steady State Theory.  Now, the Big Bang Theory has replaced it and SST became pseudoscience.  The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days.  It's missing the part of God the Creator because science will not accept the supernatural and the God Theory.


----------



## forkup

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
> 
> *Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.*
> 
> The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
> 
> *_
> sound familiar ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes your comment does sound familiar.  Very familiar.  Atheist familiar.
> 
> It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not.  Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about?  It was already mentioned in this thread several times.  Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin?  He did not know what perfection was until it was gone.  Why else do we admire and seek perfection?  You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it especially interesting that this fool throws around the word "brainwashed".  His brain was sent to the dry cleaners!
Click to expand...

What I find intresting, is that he admitted to natural selection. Admitted to organisms changing over time, admitted to mutations, but denies evolution. He litterally admitted to everything Darwin said. Now that is brainwashed.


----------



## james bond

HUGGY said:


> blah, blah, blah



Huggy, you've gone bonkers as most atheists do when confronted by the evidence and truth.  It's like being arrested and going to jail when you thought you got away with it.  He who laughs last, laughs best.


----------



## emilynghiem

james bond said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, hear, feel, and all that, my God every day. So why do I need faith to believe in God?
> 
> At this point I've determined you know little to nothing about science, most especially the scientific method, and only want to prolong this because you don't know any better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you can verify what you hear and feel as real and not just emotions you attribute to your god, then it's faith.
> 
> You saying I don't know the scientific method seems like projection to me. Not only have you not even explained how I don't understand, but if anything you're the one that has proven that you don't understand why we don't accept old ideas even though models change based on new information.
> 
> What is with Christians and music videos? They just seem to be naturally drawn to posting music videos in place of an actual argument, it's a bizarre and comedic phenomenon I've seen in more places than one. Posting them and spamming ***CHUCKLE*** isn't stylistic, the only thing it changes about your writing is that it makes it look like it comes from a little kid who just got a computer. It's like if I said the reaction gif I posted below is a stylistic choice.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the day science verifies the bible is the day pigs fly and mole people enslave humanity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have been saying all along, atheists are usually wrong.  Here is another case.  What you claim just goes to show you know very little about truth and the Bible.  It's the most read and most famous book in the world selling over 5 BILLION copies.  One of the reasons is science backs it up.  Other reasons are for moral strength and guidance in times of need.  It can help turnaround one's life.  The atheist books cannot hold a candle to it.  Probably Richard Dawkins writes his books so he can continue paying his ex-wife.  Science has verified many things in the Bible.  For one, atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe with no beginning and end.  It was the Steady State Theory.  Now, the Big Bang Theory has replaced it and SST became pseudoscience.  The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days.  It's missing the part of God the Creator because science will not accept the supernatural and the God Theory.
Click to expand...

Dear james bond what you appear to be missing is that it isn't necessary to push this justification of faith onto atheists, nontheists or anyone. Because it's faith based anyway. No amount of arguing from this approach is going to change or help anything; in fact it makes it worse by causing more defensiveness back and forth.

As westwall summarized best, existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proven nor disproven but remains faith based. As soon as we can respect that, we can work with our differences without any need to attack, defend or justify why we do or do not follow what someone else believes. There is no need to demonize conflicts and differences because our perceptions are going to remain relative and individual anyway. That doesn't negate one universal truth, just because we all paint and express it differently which is natural given uniqueness of each individual.

What I do believe we can demonstrate by scientific research studies and sociological stats james bond:

We CAN prove that the spiritual healing and reconciliation process works, based on forgiveness of these differences, in order that we reach CONSENSUS on the MEANING of God Jesus and the Bible.

We can demonstrate by replicated trials and documented experiences that we can reach consensus on meaning WITHOUT having to CHANGE anyone's core beliefs. The nontheist can remain used to using science and secular terms/laws to express what is going on with the world, society and humanity while the theist uses religious symbols for the same.

We can still agree on points, principles, laws and concepts that are universal underneath our diverse ways of seeing and saying these things.

the key that we CAN PROVE is the FORGIVENESS is the factor that makes a difference if we succeed or fail in reconciling and communicating to reach agreement DESPITE our cultural religious political or personal differences.

We can show this by STATS, by documenting the degree of rejection/unforgiveness between people of conflicting groups/beliefs CORRELATING with the rates of success/failure in reconciling conflicts and resolving relationship issues in working together or not toward common goals/solutions.  
VS.
the degree and rates of FORGIVENESS/INCLUSION correlating with ability to reach AGREEMENT and work on common solutions across political or religious groups.


----------



## james bond

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the bottom line is 1) God created the universe, Earth, and Adam and Eve because the Bible says so versus 2) It all started with "invisible" particles.
> 
> By rational thinking and Occam's Razor, it should be #1.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the only two possibilities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sealybobo james bond
> 
> There is the presentation of the universe as self existing, with no beginning and no end. And this is still consistent with the concept of an eternal/infinite God and/or existence of universal/natural laws that we can study and  use but may or may not be able to prove (but agree that they exist and how to express these laws).
> 
> There is the idea that the laws and truth about life and how the world works "is out there" but since humans do not have infinite capacity to perceive much less capture all this in words/finite terms, then we use RELATIVE symbols to express the points, concepts, principles and relationships.
> 
> Neither of these approaches has to negate or exclude either theist or nontheist perspectives or expressions in describing what's going on in the world.
> 
> There is no need to become defensive or attack differences with one another that are going to exist anyway.
Click to expand...


Sure, you can believe that, but the scientific evidence shows that wasn't the case.  Google the Steady State Theory.  

The Bible hasn't changed in what it has been saying.  There may be newer versions, but it always stated that there was a beginning with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  Genesis 1:1

I think older people used to think the universe was eternal because maybe they were taught that in school or it's what the media presented during the time.  It's the same now with the Theory of Evolution.  There's a whole generation that thought the ToE was proven with the finding of the Piltdown Man that was the long-sought missing link of apes to man.  However, that turned out to be a fraud.  Despite the fraud, the truth came out and science backed up the Bible.  The Bible can't change while scientific theories change all the time and older theories that are replaced become pseudoscience.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your wiggle room about being brain dead and there is something going on is false when applying it to my standard that when the blood stops flowing to the brain the human being has a scant few seconds until the total end to any conscience and life.  We need to stop giving people false hope that some sky fairy will give them an eternity of a future if they just conform to religions rules.
> 
> If you had included the whole sentence you probably wouldn't need to ask the question.  The Christian and Muslim religions are driven to a major degree on the faith in a hear after.  As an atheist I have no such delusion that there is some reward or punishment after the blood to my brain stops flowing.
> 
> The Mormans have even a more fantastic fantasy of owning one's own planet and other such RUBBISH.  Your religions make promises you can't verify.  This is the very essence of fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
> 
> *Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.*
> 
> The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
> 
> *_
> sound familiar ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes your comment does sound familiar.  Very familiar.  Atheist familiar.
> 
> It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not.  Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about?  It was already mentioned in this thread several times.  Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin?  He did not know what perfection was until it was gone.  Why else do we admire and seek perfection?  You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
Click to expand...


Dear sealybobo in that case Adam is a symbolic representation, used to depict either the first lineage of humanity that had "self awareness" ie ego, selfish desires, and understanding of free will vs. collective will involving others.

Or representing the historic lineage of the Hebrews, laws and culture.

After consulting with various people on the story of Adam and Eve, three of the most common interpretations I have found are:
1. this represents the spiritual development of humanity starting with the "blind faith/obedience" relationship between humans and God similar to Children and Parents. the whole issue of obeying parental authority starts off at the beginning with blind faith where the child is spanked and punished at that stage, due to immaturity and inability to understand by reason yet. And it is the NT where the children grow to adult stages, and become mature enough to learn right from wrong by reason and experience, trial and error, free will -- instead of blind faith in the OT.
2. the representation of the spiritual shift from matriarchal to patriarchal cultures/society in the process of restoring balance in the final stages where humanity reaches maturity and no longer fights between these complimentary sides (can also be represented using church as a mother figure and state as a father figure collective, where human's male/female issues are projected collectively onto society and institutions while we play out this same struggle for equal respect/consent in relationships on both the individual level in our personal lives, and the global level for all humanity collectively over history)
3. the social class development between the women representing working class and field hands valued less for picking fruits/crops and working manually in the fields/agriculture
VS. the men representing the meat hunters and thus valued more by society and creating class division by the greater control of management/ownership position at the top of the pay scale over the women/workers at the bottom.

sealybobo do any of these paradigms explain to you the fall of humanity to the history of suffering and corruption/abuse/oppression we have in the world today? if so, that is what that Adam and Eve story represents, to different people focusing on different aspects of what causes the downfall and division of man destroying ourselves until we grow to mature states to solve this problems with inequality, injustice and social oppression.


----------



## james bond

emilynghiem said:


> Dear james bond what you appear to be missing is that it isn't necessary to push this justification of faith onto atheists, nontheists or anyone. Because it's faith based anyway. No amount of arguing from this approach is going to change or help anything; in fact it makes it worse by causing more defensiveness back and forth.
> 
> As westwall summarized best, existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proven nor disproven but remains faith based. As soon as we can respect that, we can work with our differences without any need to attack, defend or justify why we do or do not follow what someone else believes. There is no need to demonize conflicts and differences because our perceptions are going to remain relative and individual anyway. That doesn't negate one universal truth, just because we all paint and express it differently which is natural given uniqueness of each individual.
> 
> What I do believe we can demonstrate by scientific research studies and sociological stats james bond:
> 
> We CAN prove that the spiritual healing and reconciliation process works, based on forgiveness of these differences, in order that we reach CONSENSUS on the MEANING of God Jesus and the Bible.
> 
> We can demonstrate by replicated trials and documented experiences that we can reach consensus on meaning WITHOUT having to CHANGE anyone's core beliefs. The nontheist can remain used to using science and secular terms/laws to express what is going on with the world, society and humanity while the theist uses religious symbols for the same.
> 
> We can still agree on points, principles, laws and concepts that are universal underneath our diverse ways of seeing and saying these things.
> 
> the key that we CAN PROVE is the FORGIVENESS is the factor that makes a difference if we succeed or fail in reconciling and communicating to reach agreement DESPITE our cultural religious political or personal differences.
> 
> We can show this by STATS, by documenting the degree of rejection/unforgiveness between people of conflicting groups/beliefs CORRELATING with the rates of success/failure in reconciling conflicts and resolving relationship issues in working together or not toward common goals/solutions.
> VS.
> the degree and rates of FORGIVENESS/INCLUSION correlating with ability to reach AGREEMENT and work on common solutions across political or religious groups.



I think you're right that it is faith-based and I want to clarify that our worldviews are entirely faith-based.  It's not just Christians and the religious, but the same for atheists, non-theists or anyone.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Unless you can verify what you hear and feel as real and not just emotions you attribute to your god, then it's faith.
> 
> You saying I don't know the scientific method seems like projection to me. Not only have you not even explained how I don't understand, but if anything you're the one that has proven that you don't understand why we don't accept old ideas even though models change based on new information.
> 
> What is with Christians and music videos? They just seem to be naturally drawn to posting music videos in place of an actual argument, it's a bizarre and comedic phenomenon I've seen in more places than one. Posting them and spamming ***CHUCKLE*** isn't stylistic, the only thing it changes about your writing is that it makes it look like it comes from a little kid who just got a computer. It's like if I said the reaction gif I posted below is a stylistic choice.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible and life and science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the day science verifies the bible is the day pigs fly and mole people enslave humanity
Click to expand...






It would appear your reading abilities and comprehension are on par with your knowledge of science and the scientific method...

When have I ever stated that I was a Christian? I haven't and I'm not.

If you had even bothered to read the last few pages you'd have come across my question to yiostheoy in post 1482 that reads as follows...




Damaged Eagle said:


> How does a Pantheist separate his/her beliefs about God from that of science as you attempt to hold a teapot over his worldview/universeview?



Now knowing what my beliefs about God are should tell you that at no time have I been dishonest in how I've treated the information you and others have asked or provided.

I'd wish you better luck next time but I suspect that as with most progressive liberal atheists that you'll continue to make assumptions as you continue your bigotry and discrimination against people not of your mindset.

Which means I can continue to have...

*****ROFLMAO*****




...at your expense.


----------



## Epitah

james bond said:


> As I have been saying all along, atheists are usually wrong.  Here is another case.  What you claim just goes to show you know very little about truth and the Bible.  It's the most read and most famous book in the world selling over 5 BILLION copies.  One of the reasons is science backs it up.  Other reasons are for moral strength and guidance in times of need.  It can help turnaround one's life.  The atheist books cannot hold a candle to it.  Probably Richard Dawkins writes his books so he can continue paying his ex-wife.  Science has verified many things in the Bible.  For one, atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe with no beginning and end.  It was the Steady State Theory.  Now, the Big Bang Theory has replaced it and SST became pseudoscience.  The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days.  It's missing the part of God the Creator because science will not accept the supernatural and the God Theory.



This reads like a parody of what a Christian would say. You've got all the tropes, pseudoscience, overblowing the wisdom of the Bible, shitting on Richard Dawkins. It's so adorable, it's he's trying to be a real science man.

Christians fucking hate science, it contradicts what they've been taught in the Bible as fact and it looks like you're just trying to rationalize it to fit the Bible as hard as humanly possibly can because you know real science is far a better system. I guarantee you that that a vast majority of Bible sales are not because of scientific accuracy, even a 4th grade science textbook is a better source of scientific information. I don't suppose you'd know why we've dated the Earth to be several billion years old if it was true to the Bible? I'd love to know how you hard you can rationalize other stories in the Bible too.



Damaged Eagle said:


> It would appear your reading abilities and comprehension are on par with your knowledge of science and the scientific method...
> 
> When have I ever stated that I was a Christian? I haven't and I'm not.
> 
> Now knowing what my beliefs about God are should tell you that at no time have I been dishonest in how I've treated the information you and others have asked or provided.
> 
> I'd wish you better luck next time but I suspect that as with most progressive liberal atheists that you'll continue to make assumptions as you continue your bigotry and discrimination against people not of your mindset.



Assuming you were a Christian was a mistake, but with how hard you defend this you certainly do blend in with them just nicely. You still haven't gotten around to explaining exactly I'm ignorant of the scientific method, or do you just want to post more music videos?

Dem dayum liburul ateists, insulting em substitutes for a real argument, we wear. I don't even thinking you still understand the purpose or meaning of Russel's Teapot.


----------



## hobelim

Epitah said:


> This reads like a parody of what a Christian would say. You've got all the tropes, pseudoscience, overblowing the wisdom of the Bible, shitting on Richard Dawkins. It's so adorable, it's he's trying to be a real science man.
> 
> Christians fucking hate science, it contradicts what they've been taught in the Bible as fact and it looks like you're just trying to rationalize it to fit the Bible as hard as humanly possibly can because you know real science is far a better system. I guarantee you that that a vast majority of Bible sales are not because of scientific accuracy, even a 4th grade science textbook is a better source of scientific information. I don't suppose you'd know why we've dated the Earth to be several billion years old if it was true to the Bible? I'd love to know how you hard you can rationalize other stories in the Bible too.





for more laughs you should ask him to explain what a talking serpent is,  ...scientifically speaking of course....


Watching someone squirming who teaches others that they can disregard divine law and worship a human being as if he was a god and they will not die as scripture clearly states but instead they will become like God and live forever (as they warn people about the danger of losing one's soul to an invisible devil) can be more fun than a barrel of monkeys...


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Damaged Eagle said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is a process, unlike faith or religion  which are closer to an ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ends would those be?
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is about learning and discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never said it wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because science can't answer the question does not prove the existence of God or a miracle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand it doesn't prove God doesn't exist either.
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Early civilizations prayed to Sun gods, rain gods, hunting gods, etc., because their science didn't explain the lack of rain or dearth of eatable animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so.o..o...?????
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is for those with patience,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have me lot's of patience... At least a 145 pages worth of patience at this time.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...faith is for those who don't work well with the unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that also why people, who claim to be atheists, who hardly have a working knowledge of science and math fall back on the scientific consensus because they require faith in something?
> 
> Looks like that to me anyway.
> 
> View attachment 79781
> 
> Seems that the followers of God and the followers of science have a lot in common.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


The ends is the answer to all your questions thru faith, whereas science often leads to more questions.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist........basic logic.

And so.......modern religion does use God to explain what they don't understand. Do you really not get it?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Assuming you were a Christian was a mistake, but with how hard you defend this you certainly do blend in with them just nicely.



They're not the ones attacking me... People like you are.



Epitah said:


> You still haven't gotten around to explaining exactly I'm ignorant of the scientific method, or do you just want to post more music videos?



It's been explained to you even by at least one other person here. This has to do with that reading comprehension thing and the lack of that you have going on.



Epitah said:


> Dem dayum liburul ateists, insulting em substitutes for a real argument, we wear.



When did I post that? Oh! I didn't you're embellishing.

Aren't you going to make some rude comment about my music videos or something like you have been for several pages now?



Epitah said:


> I don't even thinking you still understand the purpose or meaning of Russel's Teapot.



I understand it perfectly.

I believe there's a lot of things you don't understand about the question I posed about that teapot.

But then I've already covered your reading comprehension skills.






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

BuckToothMoron said:


> The ends is the answer to all your questions thru faith, whereas science often leads to more questions.
> 
> You can't prove that God doesn't exist........basic logic.
> 
> And so.......modern religion does use God to explain what they don't understand. Do you really not get it?








I use science to help comprehend my God all the time.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you were a Christian was a mistake, but with how hard you defend this you certainly do blend in with them just nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not the ones attacking me... People like you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't gotten around to explaining exactly I'm ignorant of the scientific method, or do you just want to post more music videos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been explained to you even by at least one other person here. This has to do with that reading comprehension thing and the lack of that you have going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dem dayum liburul ateists, insulting em substitutes for a real argument, we wear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I post that? Oh! I didn't you're embellishing.
> 
> Aren't you going to make some rude comment about my music videos or something like you have been for several pages now?
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even thinking you still understand the purpose or meaning of Russel's Teapot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it perfectly.
> 
> I believe there's a lot of things you don't understand about the question I posed about that teapot.
> 
> But then I've already covered your reading comprehension skills.
> 
> View attachment 79928
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...



I'm beginning to notice a trend in your posts where you're basically just saying "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?" in place of actually saying something, it's impossible to have a conversation when you constantly fling irrelevant topics and deflecting everything back. How am I supposed to take you seriously on the topic of science when you need the difference between a theory and a hypothesis clarified, think the Big Bang is a faith and have a warped view on what the onus of proof is? You've said I'm ignorant on the Scientific theory like 3 times with nothing to back that up. Music videos ain't gonna help ya.


----------



## BreezeWood

Damaged Eagle said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ends is the answer to all your questions thru faith, whereas science often leads to more questions.
> 
> You can't prove that God doesn't exist........basic logic.
> 
> And so.......modern religion does use God to explain what they don't understand. Do you really not get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use science to help comprehend my God all the time.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

.


Damaged Eagle said:


> I use science to help comprehend my God all the time.



for what reason .... the Spirit needs science to reach the Everlasting ?





james bond said:


> The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days.




_*in six days ...*_







that must have been the BBCT - -  big bang christian theory ....

.


----------



## Epitah

BreezeWood said:


> _*in six days ...*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that must have been the BBCT - - big bang christian theory ....



nah man the math totally adds up. you just have to increase the span of a day in to like a few hundreds of billions of years. i know this is right, god told me himself. in my mind. and nobody else heard it. but it happened. totally.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you were a Christian was a mistake, but with how hard you defend this you certainly do blend in with them just nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not the ones attacking me... People like you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't gotten around to explaining exactly I'm ignorant of the scientific method, or do you just want to post more music videos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been explained to you even by at least one other person here. This has to do with that reading comprehension thing and the lack of that you have going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dem dayum liburul ateists, insulting em substitutes for a real argument, we wear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I post that? Oh! I didn't you're embellishing.
> 
> Aren't you going to make some rude comment about my music videos or something like you have been for several pages now?
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even thinking you still understand the purpose or meaning of Russel's Teapot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it perfectly.
> 
> I believe there's a lot of things you don't understand about the question I posed about that teapot.
> 
> But then I've already covered your reading comprehension skills.
> 
> View attachment 79928
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to notice a trend in your posts where you're basically just saying "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?" in place of actually saying something, it's impossible to have a conversation when you constantly fling irrelevant topics and deflecting everything back. How am I supposed to take you seriously on the topic of science when you need the difference between a theory and a hypothesis clarified, think the Big Bang is a faith and have a warped view on what the onus of proof is? You've said I'm ignorant on the Scientific theory like 3 times with nothing to back that up. Music videos ain't gonna help ya.
Click to expand...




I'm beginning to notice a trend also and it's probably because.... you're ignorant.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory

"Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon." 

Note that in the above at no time does it call a 'theory' scientific fact. It calls it a 'valid explanation of a phenomenon'.

"A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypothesis. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time."

Oh my! A theory can be 'proven' or 'REJECTED'. I do believe I posted something to that effect earlier and you've kept repeating your ignorance over and over and over again like a scratched vinyl record. But then that's probably because you don't wish to read or comprehend what's being posted just like Breezewood.






I'm sure it couldn't possibly be because...

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

BreezeWood said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use science to help comprehend my God all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for what reason .... the Spirit needs science to reach the Everlasting ?
Click to expand...






Sigh.h..h... What part of Pantheist don't you understand?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Oh my! A theory can be 'proven' or 'REJECTED'. I do believe I posted something to that effect earlier and you've kept repeating your ignorance over and over and over again like a scratched vinyl record. But then that's probably because you don't wish to read or comprehend what's being posted just like Breezewood.



You still need a good reason to reject a theory, and as far as you've said you don't have any good reason to deny it because whenever it gets brought up you lazily try to shift the burden of proof.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my! A theory can be 'proven' or 'REJECTED'. I do believe I posted something to that effect earlier and you've kept repeating your ignorance over and over and over again like a scratched vinyl record. But then that's probably because you don't wish to read or comprehend what's being posted just like Breezewood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still need a good reason to reject a theory, and as far as you've said you don't have any good reason to deny it because whenever it gets brought up you lazily try to shift the burden of proof.
Click to expand...







If the Big Bang is scientific 'fact' as you say it is then you'd know what kick started the universe. You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to tell me the answer to that one. With any luck by the time you figure out what exactly is happening here we'll all know if the cat is half-dead or half-alive. However those last two propositions appear to be the same and we may be peering into the looking glass as God roles the dice...

*****CHUCKLE*****




...Now I wonder what happened to yiostheoy and her little teapot.


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> If the Big Bang is scientific 'fact' as you say it is then you'd know what kick started the universe. You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to tell me the answer to that one. With any luck by the time you figure out what exactly is happening here we'll all know if the cat is half-dead or half-alive. However those last two propositions appear to be the same and we may be peering into the looking glass as God roles the dice...



We don't know what caused the Big Bang, but we do in fact know it happened. You don't need to know the initial cause exactly to know something happened. If someone turns up dead and we don't know the cause of death that doesn't mean you can deny that person is dead.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Big Bang is scientific 'fact' as you say it is then you'd know what kick started the universe. You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to tell me the answer to that one. With any luck by the time you figure out what exactly is happening here we'll all know if the cat is half-dead or half-alive. However those last two propositions appear to be the same and we may be peering into the looking glass as God roles the dice...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know what caused the Big Bang, but we do in fact know it happened. You don't need to know the initial cause exactly to know something happened. If someone turns up dead and we don't know the cause of death that doesn't mean you can deny that person is dead.
Click to expand...






Or perhaps the universe is not so short lived after all...

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

"(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.?" 

Now what was that you were saying about facts? Oh wait! If this is true then I'll have to come up with a new question to confusticate and be-bother all the atheists as they run towards their new scientific consensus that they think disproves the existence of God. Don't worry though I'm sure I will be able to think up something and still avoid that little teapot.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Now what was that you were saying about facts? Oh wait! If this is true then I'll have to come up with a new question to confusticate and be-bother all the atheists as they run towards their new scientific consensus that they think disproves the existence of God. Don't worry though I'm sure I will be able to think up something and still avoid that little teapot.



You can't disprove a creator because it's an untestable hypothesis that you can't contradict. It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real. You still do not understand the onus of proof.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now what was that you were saying about facts? Oh wait! If this is true then I'll have to come up with a new question to confusticate and be-bother all the atheists as they run towards their new scientific consensus that they think disproves the existence of God. Don't worry though I'm sure I will be able to think up something and still avoid that little teapot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't disprove a creator because it's an untestable hypothesis that you can't contradict. It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real. You still do not understand the onus of proof.
Click to expand...






And you still haven't looked up the meaning of Pantheist.

My God is real even if we're all living in...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> And you still haven't looked up the meaning of Pantheist.
> 
> My God is real even if we're all living in...



You still can't disprove that everything encompasses a god. You can't disprove there isn't a tiny teapot floating in space. You can't disprove there isn't an invisible intangible monster in my closet. It's on you, the believer, to prove it.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still haven't looked up the meaning of Pantheist.
> 
> My God is real even if we're all living in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still can't disprove that everything encompasses a god. You can't disprove there isn't a tiny teapot floating in space. You can't disprove there isn't an invisible intangible monster in my closet. It's on you, the believer, to prove it.
Click to expand...






Why should have to disprove to you anything that I haven't claimed?

You on the other hand wish me to believe that there was a Big Bang and that someone smacked it with a magic teapot to get it all started up so that Newton's Laws Of Motion would not be violated.... Or did it just appear out of a magic teapot?

So now the question is where did this magic teapot of yours come from since you're the believer?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Why should have to disprove to you anything that I haven't claimed?
> 
> You on the other hand wish me to believe that there was a Big Bang and that someone smacked it with a magic teapot to get it all started up so that Newton's Laws Of Motion would not be violated.... Or did it just appear out of a magic teapot?
> 
> So now the question is where did this magic teapot of yours come from since you're the believer?



You're the pantheist, its up to you to justify your position.

Do you actually do not understand the point of the teapot and are just stupid, or are you just fuckin with me? I'm beginning to think you really do not understand who the burden of proof lies on. Why do you keep bringing up the laws of motion when they're meant to be applied to small uses and not the origin of the universe?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> You're the pantheist, its up to you to justify your position.



I have a whole universe that I can show you to prove my position. How about you?



Epitah said:


> Do you actually do not understand the point of the teapot and are just stupid, or are you just fuckin with me?



A teapot created by a atheist philosopher who thought he could justify his position against all people who believe by saying the burden of proof belongs to the believer in God.



Epitah said:


> [I'm beginning to think you really do not understand who the burden of proof lies on.



I've shown you my proof just open your eyes and look around.

Now show me yours. What kick started the universe?



Epitah said:


> [Why do you keep bringing up the laws of motion when they're meant to be applied to small uses and not the origin of the universe?



Really????? How small of uses are they meant to be applied at? The atomic level? Anything under 10 grams? Anything under a ton? The planetary scale? Interstellar? Intergalactic? Bigger? Do you even understand Newton's Laws Of Motion?





*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> I have a whole universe that I can show you to prove my position. How about you?



You have to prove it encompasses a God, because you're the one that believes. I rejected that idea.

If I said there was a monster under my bed but you couldn't find any good reason to believe so, would it be up to me or you to prove there is a monster? What you're telling me here is that you're the one who needs to disprove the unsupported claim you're rejecting. If we have to accept everything if we can't disprove it then we'll have to accept a ton of shit.



Damaged Eagle said:


> A teapot created by a atheist philosopher who thought he could justify his position against all people who believe by saying the burden of proof belongs to the believer in God.



Because it does! The believers are the ones who honestly think that is the nature of reality and if they want to be justified in their position they have to prove it.



Damaged Eagle said:


> I've shown you my proof just open your eyes and look around.
> 
> Now show me yours. What kick started the universe?



You haven't shown me any proof aside from stating that you have proof but haven't shown it. And like I've said over, and over, and over, we don't know what "kick started" the universe, all we know is the Big Bang. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we can shoehorn in anything we want as an explanation, that is called and argument from ignorance/god of the gaps argument.


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Really????? How small of uses are they meant to be applied at? The atomic level? Anything under 10 grams? Anything under a ton? The planetary scale? Interstellar? Intergalactic? Bigger? Do you even understand Newton's Laws Of Motion?



Smaller applications as in defined physical objects.

I don't understand how they contradict the Big Bang in any way either. Applying laws 1 and 2 make no sense to apply BB and law 3, while it might sound like an enticing argument at first, you then think about why it should be applied to the Big Bang, all physics cease to work before the Big Bang. You yourself haven't really even clarified your premise.


----------



## james bond

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Advancement in neurology is showing that there are electrical signals that occur in the brain even after clinical death.  Thus, one is still conscious.
> 
> It isn't false hope when the evidence points to an eternal afterlife.  Many religions believe in this and some kind judgment for one's life.  Otherwise, the only punishment someone can receive for being a murderer, a false witness, or a liar, cheater and thief is in this life.  More reason for the death penalty, but it is hardly adequate for true evil.
> 
> What do the Mormons believe?  Christians cannot scientifically prove what happens when we die and cross over.  No one can.  God said he will keep the beginning and the end a secret from us.  If something is unknown, then it does not mean that it is a falsehood.  By your own definition of fraud, then evolution is fraud ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That last bit is funny.  Calculate the dollars given to the various religions supposedly paving the way to heaven which certainly is in the hundreds of trillions over the ages compared with what you might think society has been paying to study the evidence involved with the various endeavors following the history of species.
> 
> I'm sure that in the investigation of "evolution" there have been a few blind alleys and incorrect theories.  Over all the science has been honest.  That is a far cry from religion.  The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a far cry from religion. The dishonesty of religion has been astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity and Medicine - Bad News About Christianity
> 
> *Illness was indisputably caused by sin. The Bible said so, and so did Church Councils.*
> 
> The Church developed the view that real practical medicine savoured of black magic. In any case it was wrong to try to subvert God's holy will by interfering with the natural course of events. It was God who caused illness. He was responsible for cures just as he was responsible for death. Even church law mentioned, in passing, that diseases were attributable to God, for example ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> Illness was indisputably caused by sin ...
> 
> *_
> sound familiar ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes your comment does sound familiar.  Very familiar.  Atheist familiar.
> 
> It just goes to show you were not paying attention, while spouting your nonsense about Moses, Judaism, Mormons or what not.  Do you not remember what the Christians here were talking about?  It was already mentioned in this thread several times.  Is it too hard to believe it came from Adam's sin?  He did not know what perfection was until it was gone.  Why else do we admire and seek perfection?  You swallow that all of this came from "invisible" particles when conservation of thermodynamics prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ones taking you seriously. Adam is a fictitious character
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo in that case Adam is a symbolic representation, used to depict either the first lineage of humanity that had "self awareness" ie ego, selfish desires, and understanding of free will vs. collective will involving others.
> 
> Or representing the historic lineage of the Hebrews, laws and culture.
> 
> After consulting with various people on the story of Adam and Eve, three of the most common interpretations I have found are:
> 1. this represents the spiritual development of humanity starting with the "blind faith/obedience" relationship between humans and God similar to Children and Parents. the whole issue of obeying parental authority starts off at the beginning with blind faith where the child is spanked and punished at that stage, due to immaturity and inability to understand by reason yet. And it is the NT where the children grow to adult stages, and become mature enough to learn right from wrong by reason and experience, trial and error, free will -- instead of blind faith in the OT.
> 2. the representation of the spiritual shift from matriarchal to patriarchal cultures/society in the process of restoring balance in the final stages where humanity reaches maturity and no longer fights between these complimentary sides (can also be represented using church as a mother figure and state as a father figure collective, where human's male/female issues are projected collectively onto society and institutions while we play out this same struggle for equal respect/consent in relationships on both the individual level in our personal lives, and the global level for all humanity collectively over history)
> 3. the social class development between the women representing working class and field hands valued less for picking fruits/crops and working manually in the fields/agriculture
> VS. the men representing the meat hunters and thus valued more by society and creating class division by the greater control of management/ownership position at the top of the pay scale over the women/workers at the bottom.
> 
> sealybobo do any of these paradigms explain to you the fall of humanity to the history of suffering and corruption/abuse/oppression we have in the world today? if so, that is what that Adam and Eve story represents, to different people focusing on different aspects of what causes the downfall and division of man destroying ourselves until we grow to mature states to solve this problems with inequality, injustice and social oppression.
Click to expand...


Just wanted to add Adam and Eve were perfect humans.  They had good bone density and skeletal structure, didn't need a lot of sleep to be productive, had awesome memory, great health, their off-spring could reproduce and not be concerned about genetic deformities, could live forever (longevity) and so on.  It's what we strive for with science today.  Basically, the norm was being great specimens.  The norm also was natural selection, and through it they and life could diversify even more.


----------



## james bond

Epitah said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have been saying all along, atheists are usually wrong.  Here is another case.  What you claim just goes to show you know very little about truth and the Bible.  It's the most read and most famous book in the world selling over 5 BILLION copies.  One of the reasons is science backs it up.  Other reasons are for moral strength and guidance in times of need.  It can help turnaround one's life.  The atheist books cannot hold a candle to it.  Probably Richard Dawkins writes his books so he can continue paying his ex-wife.  Science has verified many things in the Bible.  For one, atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe with no beginning and end.  It was the Steady State Theory.  Now, the Big Bang Theory has replaced it and SST became pseudoscience.  The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days.  It's missing the part of God the Creator because science will not accept the supernatural and the God Theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This reads like a parody of what a Christian would say. You've got all the tropes, pseudoscience, overblowing the wisdom of the Bible, shitting on Richard Dawkins. It's so adorable, it's he's trying to be a real science man.
> 
> Christians fucking hate science, it contradicts what they've been taught in the Bible as fact and it looks like you're just trying to rationalize it to fit the Bible as hard as humanly possibly can because you know real science is far a better system. I guarantee you that that a vast majority of Bible sales are not because of scientific accuracy, even a 4th grade science textbook is a better source of scientific information. I don't suppose you'd know why we've dated the Earth to be several billion years old if it was true to the Bible? I'd love to know how you hard you can rationalize other stories in the Bible too.
Click to expand...


Ha ha again, atheists are usually wrong.

Christians do not hate science.  They invented science and the scientific method in order to demonstrate God's glory.  Sir Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican.


----------



## Epitah

james bond said:


> a ha again, atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Christians do not hate science.  They invented science and the scientific method in order to demonstrate God's glory.  Sir Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican.



Nobody invented science. Saying you invented science is like saying you invented fire. And Christians laying the foundation for science has no bearing on whether or not it's relevant to Christianity or true.

Also, how DO you justify a talking serpent? Scientifically speaking, of course.


----------



## HUGGY

Epitah said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> a ha again, atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Christians do not hate science.  They invented science and the scientific method in order to demonstrate God's glory.  Sir Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody invented science. Saying you invented science is like saying you invented fire. And Christians laying the foundation for science has no bearing on whether or not it's relevant to Christianity or true.
> 
> Also, how DO you justify a talking serpent? Scientifically speaking, of course.
Click to expand...


How did A & E understand the snake?  Let's assume the snake was making any sense.  It takes time to learn language skills both in the talking and the listening.  The Human mind doesn't come pre-programmed so how is it we don't all speak snake?  Did GAAWWWDDD speak in snake also?  How did A & E communicate?  It all sounds so unbelievable!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> [You have to prove it encompasses a God, because you're the one that believes. I rejected that idea.



And you are free to reject



Epitah said:


> If I said there was a monster under my bed but you couldn't find any good reason to believe so, would it be up to me or you to prove there is a monster?



Good enough... I do. No monster under there and I still haven't seen any kick start attached to the universe.



Epitah said:


> What you're telling me here is that you're the one who needs to disprove the unsupported claim you're rejecting.



Excuse me but you're the one rejecting my claim.



Epitah said:


> If we have to accept everything if we can't disprove it then we'll have to accept a ton of shit.



Yeah! Like kick starts that just happen to universes without explanation and the laws of physics magically disappearing as we go back in time to the time of your Big Bang (see below).



Epitah said:


> [Because it does! The believers are the ones who honestly think that is the nature of reality and if they want to be justified in their position they have to prove it.



Still haven't got that explanation from you for what kick started the universe.

Are you going to fill in the gap with that I don't know explanation?



Epitah said:


> You haven't shown me any proof aside from stating that you have proof but haven't shown it. And like I've said over, and over, and over, we don't know what "kick started" the universe, all we know is the Big Bang. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we can shoehorn in anything we want as an explanation, that is called and argument from ignorance/god of the gaps argument.



I've shown you the whole universe!

However you keep referring to some magical event that you call the Big Bang that you say just happened sometime around 14 billion years ago and you can't provide me with anything except a magical teapot that caused it to happen.



Epitah said:


> Smaller applications as in defined physical objects.



I see... The universe isn't a physical object in your mind.

So what is it a magic teapot?

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> I don't understand how they contradict the Big Bang in any way either. Applying laws 1 and 2 make no sense to apply BB and law 3, while it might sound like an enticing argument at first, you then think about why it should be applied to the Big Bang, all physics cease to work before the Big Bang. You yourself haven't really even clarified your premise.



So now the law of physics don't exist in your Big Bang theology also?

Did the magical teapot take them away?







Prove it!

*****ROFLMAO*****




I wonder if the cat is half-dead or half-alive at this point.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now what was that you were saying about facts? Oh wait! If this is true then I'll have to come up with a new question to confusticate and be-bother all the atheists as they run towards their new scientific consensus that they think disproves the existence of God. Don't worry though I'm sure I will be able to think up something and still avoid that little teapot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't disprove a creator because it's an untestable hypothesis that you can't contradict. It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real. You still do not understand the onus of proof.
Click to expand...


"It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."

Why?

*“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas
*


----------



## Kristian

God is Englismen and Israeli.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Cats and boxes
Rabbits and mirrors

Down and over
Roll die over here

(Hm.m..m... I'll have to work at it. I see potential)

******CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Kristian

Sweden and U.S. have Lord.


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Good enough... I do. No monster under there and I still haven't seen any kick start attached to the universe.



I don't think you quite understand. Just because we do not have an explanation right now does not mean there isn't one, and that does not mean you can just jump to another unsupported conclusion. Argument from ignorance. 



Damaged Eagle said:


> I've shown you the whole universe!
> 
> However you keep referring to some magical event that you call the Big Bang that you say just happened sometime around 14 billion years ago and you can't provide me with anything except a magical teapot that caused it to happen.



You haven't shown anything.

At first I think you were fucking with me with your misinterpretations of the teapot but I'm beginning to suspect you're serious. The teapot is not supposed to be a real assertion. 



Damaged Eagle said:


> Yeah! Like kick starts that just happen to universes without explanation and the laws of physics magically disappearing as we go back in time to the time of your Big Bang (see below).



Because scientist are unclear of how they apply to a pre-big bang existence.


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> "It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."
> 
> Why?
> 
> *“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas*



To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.


----------



## james bond

Epitah said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> a ha again, atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> Christians do not hate science.  They invented science and the scientific method in order to demonstrate God's glory.  Sir Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody invented science. Saying you invented science is like saying you invented fire. And Christians laying the foundation for science has no bearing on whether or not it's relevant to Christianity or true.
> 
> Also, how DO you justify a talking serpent? Scientifically speaking, of course.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  Wrong again.  You're in denial in regards to science.  It has the scientific method.  How can religious scientists hate science?  From Pew Research, they make up around 50%.

And most of your statements are opinions.  Not much to argue there except point out the errors.  I already refuted your Christians hate science error of opinion in front of all these people.  Are you an atheist who knows about science since your attitude is to look down your nose at them?  Doubtful.

I can explain the talking serpent since it is so incredulous to you.  It's in the Bible, the most prodigious and best selling book in the world.  *How do you explain an universe from "nothing," ok, "invisible" particles?
*
The serpent speaking to Adam and Eve is referred to in Genesis 3.  Of course, animals cannot talk but Satan was the one talking through the snake.  That's how Bible scholars explain it.  It all came to be because of free will.


----------



## Edward_Palamar

But He does . . .


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."
> 
> Why?
> 
> *“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.
Click to expand...



What claim is being made?


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> What claim is being made?



The claim I'm talking about is there is a god/a creator. and as it applies to this forum, the monotheistic god of the bible.


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."
> 
> Why?
> 
> *“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What claim is being made?
Click to expand...

.


PoliticalChic said:


> What claim is being made?



*
To one without faith, no explanation is possible.*


that one.
*
.*


----------



## Edward_Palamar

St. Thomas Aquinas gets a thumbs-up from me.

Jesus had quoted Scripture regarding opening up the ears and eyes of those in darkness.

As God does exist, we are forever reliant upon Him.

Whether it be our next breath, thought, . . . whatever, God is the cause of all things.

But if one is blind and/or deaf to that basic fact, the darkness still pervades.

Because faith in God is a gift from God, a praise of thanksgiving is His due for allowing us to know Him.


----------



## Epitah

Edward_Palamar said:


> St. Thomas Aquinas gets a thumbs-up from me.
> 
> Jesus had quoted Scripture regarding opening up the ears and eyes of those in darkness.
> 
> As God does exist, we are forever reliant upon Him.
> 
> Whether it be our next breath, thought, . . . whatever, God is the cause of all things.
> 
> But if one is blind and/or deaf to that basic fact, the darkness still pervades.
> 
> Because faith in God is a gift from God, a praise of thanksgiving is His due for allowing us to know Him.



haha, okay, whatever man


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> I don't think you quite understand. Just because we do not have an explanation right now does not mean there isn't one, and that does not mean you can just jump to another unsupported conclusion. Argument from ignorance.



Funny! I've been listening to a lot of that last part from you for a few pages now.



Epitah said:


> You haven't shown anything.



I see... So the whole universe is nothing now.

Why hasn't the universe and yourself vanished then?



Epitah said:


> At first I think you were fucking with me with your misinterpretations of the teapot but I'm beginning to suspect you're serious. The teapot is not supposed to be a real assertion.



You are mistaken.... I've never stopped fucking with you.

Now don't worry we'll have tea shortly.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> Because scientist are unclear of how they apply to a pre-big bang existence.



That's convenient... So we're all supposed to believe that some magical power changed the laws of physics all because you have no plausible explanation for the event. Aren't you the skeptic who doesn't believe in God, unicorns, fairies, and such?

I'm thinkin' it'd be easier to just say a miracle occurred.

Wait!!!!! Didn't I say that in the opening post of this thread?






It must be time for tea!

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Funny! I've been listening to a lot of that last part from you for a few pages now.



The Big Bang is supported. What you don't seem to get is that we don't need to know the exact cause to know something happened, you think that just because we don't have a specific explanation means the existence of the result is completely invalidated.



Damaged Eagle said:


> I see... So the whole universe is nothing now.
> 
> Why hasn't the universe and yourself vanished then?



Allow me to clarify.

You haven't shown me any information of value.



Damaged Eagle said:


> That's convenient... So we're all supposed to believe that some magical power changed the laws of physics all because you have no plausible explanation for the event. Aren't you the skeptic who doesn't believe in God, unicorns, fairies, and such?
> 
> I'm thinkin' it'd be easier to just say a miracle occurred.



I don't see a reason to be skeptical of the Big Bang itself. I do however see a reason to be skeptical of anyone asserting any given cause without supporting it.

Have you just admitted you're just naturally drawn to explanation that sounds the simplest and easiest to digest to you instead of just admitting you don't know


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What claim is being made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim I'm talking about is there is a god/a creator. and as it applies to this forum, the monotheistic god of the bible.
Click to expand...



Do you doubt the existence of the universe?

Do you have an explanation for its origin?

Do you subscribe to either of these:
a. it was always here......red shift notwithstanding

b. the universe was created out of nothing....as Krauss states....
*"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing,"*
by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins (Afterword)

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities." David Berlinski

“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”             Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.


So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."
> 
> Why?
> 
> *“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What claim is being made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What claim is being made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> To one without faith, no explanation is possible.*
> 
> 
> that one.
> *
> .*
Click to expand...




Please explain why you doubt the obvious truth therein.


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."




And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...
Click to expand...



"And where did God come from?"

In  order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.

Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.

See if this helps.

In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And where did God come from?"
> 
> In  order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.
> 
> Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.
> 
> See if this helps.
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
Click to expand...


Another cop out about god...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And where did God come from?"
> 
> In  order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.
> 
> Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.
> 
> See if this helps.
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another cop out about god...
Click to expand...



I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.

Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?

You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.

In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.


BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And where did God come from?"
> 
> In  order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.
> 
> Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.
> 
> See if this helps.
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another cop out about god...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.
> 
> Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?
> 
> You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.
> 
> In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.
> 
> 
> BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
> Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?
Click to expand...


Only a complete and utter whack job would somehow try and put a belief in a god and communism in the same spiel...good grief woman, you're deranged....


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> Do you have an explanation for its origin?



The Big Bang theory.




PoliticalChic said:


> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."



No it doesn't. You're taking a line from a book and trying to apply it to real life, but that doesn't work.



PoliticalChic said:


> He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.



This has the exact same issue as the argument above. You present a somewhat valid argument but then just take a quote from a book with no credibility and try to apply it to real life. I can easily say Marvel comics says the evil Galactus destroys planets and therefore that's why stars die in real life, but that doesn't make it true. you are missing a very big step in logic



PoliticalChic said:


> I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.
> 
> Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?
> 
> You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.
> 
> In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.
> 
> 
> BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
> Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?



stop obsessing over capitalization and make a real argument, and no ranting about the unrelated topic of liberals supporting communism and lack of morals is not a real argument


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."
> 
> Why?
> 
> *“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What claim is being made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What claim is being made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> To one without faith, no explanation is possible.*
> 
> 
> that one.
> *
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why you doubt the obvious truth therein.
Click to expand...

.


PoliticalChic said:


> Please explain why you doubt the obvious truth therein.



*To one without faith, no explanation is possible.
*
there simply is not a correlation between the two ...

*
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary.
*
the same as faith is not an end's but a means and itself is without substance an explanation would be necessary to facilitate.


faith in the Almighty will not accomplish Admission to the Everlasting for the mortal Spirit - the means without the result, explanation does not accomplished the endeavor ... that's why christians made up their religion and others are simply fools.

.


----------



## james bond

Epitah said:


> I don't see a reason to be skeptical of the Big Bang itself. I do however see a reason to be skeptical of anyone asserting any given cause without supporting it.
> 
> Have you just admitted you're just naturally drawn to explanation that sounds the simplest and easiest to digest to you instead of just admitting you don't know



Simplest not in that sense.  We're trying to explain something complex rather than something from "invisible" particles.  Parsimony is best like Occam's razor.

Before BBT, it was the eternal universe or Steady State Theory which became pseudoscience.  Today, with BBT considered the best explanation, science backs Genesis in the Bible more.  Just take out the bang and replace it with the creator.


----------



## Epitah

james bond said:


> Before BBT, it was the eternal universe or Steady State Theory which became pseudoscience. Today, with BBT considered the best explanation, science backs Genesis in the Bible more. Just take out the bang and replace it with the creator.



Because scientific models change. What does that have to do with anything?

You saying science backs up the Bible is the pseudoscience. The Bible says the universe and the earth were created 6 days which obviously isn't true. Scientific data contradicts information given in the Bible

Still haven't given that scientific explanation for the talking serpent, too as far as I know.


----------



## james bond

Epitah said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simplest not in that sense. We're trying to explain something complex rather than something from "invisible" particles. Parsimony is best like Occam's razor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before BBT, it was the eternal universe or Steady State Theory which became pseudoscience. Today, with BBT considered the best explanation, science backs Genesis in the Bible more. Just take out the bang and replace it with the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because scientific models change. What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> You saying science backs up the Bible is the pseudoscience. The Bible says the universe and the earth were created 6 days which obviously isn't true. Scientific data contradicts information given in the Bible
> 
> Still haven't given that scientific explanation for the talking serpent, too as far as I know.
Click to expand...


I gave that explanation already.  The devil talked through the serpent.  Animals can't talk ha ha.  You haven't answered the question of how the universe came from "invisible" particles.

Scientific theories become pseudoscience when something better replaces them.  Older people probably were led to believe in an eternal universe.  Yet, today that has changed more to what the Bible said centuries ago.  That's significant and more evidence for God or a creator.  BBT violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so The Creator Theory holds more significance.  Science won't accept The God Theory or a supernatural explanation.

Again, you are wrong because that isn't the definition of pseudoscience.  The Bible is backed up by scientific methods even though it isn't a science book.


----------



## Epitah

james bond said:


> I gave that explanation already. The devil talked through the serpent. Animals can't talk ha ha. You haven't answered the question of how the universe came from "invisible" particles.



Do you seriously think that's a scientific explanation? I don't even know what invisible particles are or what they have to do with the Big Bang.

also you made like 3 claims you can't support in that one sentence and the word serpent is very vague, and that STILL isn't a scientific explanation.
-The Devil
-The Devil can posses animals and has done so
-Possessing animals can make them talk despite them having no vocal chords to speak language on the level of human beings



james bond said:


> Scientific theories become pseudoscience when something better replaces them. Older people probably were led to believe in an eternal universe. Yet, today that has changed more to what the Bible said centuries ago. That's significant and more evidence for God or a creator. BBT violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so The Creator Theory holds more significance. Science won't accept The God Theory or a supernatural explanation.



Just because something in real life happens to line up with a book doesn't mean the book is real or has credibility. A creator isn't a theory, it's a faulty hypothesis at best.


----------



## Epitah

And no, the Big Bang doesn't violate the second law of therodynamics. even if it did and the big bang was somehow false then that still doesn't make the creator hypothesis hold any more water


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And where did God come from?"
> 
> In  order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.
> 
> Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.
> 
> See if this helps.
> 
> In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
> He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another cop out about god...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.
> 
> Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?
> 
> You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.
> 
> In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.
> 
> 
> BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
> Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a complete and utter whack job would somehow try and put a belief in a god and communism in the same spiel...good grief woman, you're deranged....
Click to expand...




I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.


Atheism is the a priori requirement of communism, Liberalism, and all of Leftism.
To be a secularist....as you are, you must disregard, disparage, and mock religion.

*"There is no God:*
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."  The Schwarz Report | Essays



Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.
> 
> 
> Atheism is the a priori requirement of communism, Liberalism, and all of Leftism.
> To be a secularist....as you are, you must disregard, disparage, and mock religion.
> 
> *"There is no God:*
> This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor." The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??



I don't even know what this has to do with the original argument aside from you just wanting to shit on liberalism

your quote there also reveals an interesting tidbit, do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...
Click to expand...




Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an explanation for its origin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. You're taking a line from a book and trying to apply it to real life, but that doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has the exact same issue as the argument above. You present a somewhat valid argument but then just take a quote from a book with no credibility and try to apply it to real life. I can easily say Marvel comics says the evil Galactus destroys planets and therefore that's why stars die in real life, but that doesn't make it true. you are missing a very big step in logic
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.
> 
> Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?
> 
> You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.
> 
> In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.
> 
> 
> BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
> Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stop obsessing over capitalization and make a real argument, and no ranting about the unrelated topic of liberals supporting communism and lack of morals is not a real argument
Click to expand...




And the source of the material for that "big bang'?

Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can you come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?


Of course you can't.

....the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
Atheistic 'scientists' advance total nonsense....and in an attempt to obviate a belief in God, you pretend to accept it.


So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> And the source of the material for that "big bang'?
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can you come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> Of course you can't.
> 
> ....the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> Atheistic 'scientists' advance total nonsense....and in an attempt to obviate a belief in God, you pretend to accept it.
> 
> 
> So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?



We don't know what caused the big bang and we may never know, but that's a better answer than coming up with any you want to fill that gap. Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

when studying science, atheist scientists tend to leave ideas of a god out of it because they're completely irrelevant and not helpful at all


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.
> 
> 
> Atheism is the a priori requirement of communism, Liberalism, and all of Leftism.
> To be a secularist....as you are, you must disregard, disparage, and mock religion.
> 
> *"There is no God:*
> This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor." The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know what this has to do with the original argument aside from you just wanting to shit on liberalism
> 
> your quote there also reveals an interesting tidbit, do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?
Click to expand...



"....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"

Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the source of the material for that "big bang'?
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can you come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> Of course you can't.
> 
> ....the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> Atheistic 'scientists' advance total nonsense....and in an attempt to obviate a belief in God, you pretend to accept it.
> 
> 
> So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know what caused the big bang and we may never know, but that's a better answer than coming up with any you want to fill that gap. Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> when studying science, atheist scientists tend to leave ideas of a god out of it because they're completely irrelevant and not helpful at all
Click to expand...



"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

Of course you are wrong about that, too.

I provided the name of Krauss' book....
You should read more carefully.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.


All sorts of nonsense is promulgated by fake science, in the attempt to bolster a disrespect for religion.
Krauss and Richard Dawkins (the book mentioned above) is but one.

Another nonsense theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
a. . "The *multiverse *(or *meta-universe*) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them." 
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

b. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
*"Panspermia* (from Greek πᾶν _(pan)_, meaning "all", and σπέρμα _(sperma)_, meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids, asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintended contamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You really should know more about the subject.You appear, instead, to be the poster child for government schooling.


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….



It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.



PoliticalChic said:


> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.



What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?

Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
I'm gonna need to give this book a read.


----------



## PoliticalChic

A


Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
Click to expand...



"It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset."

You're not about to reveal another of your lacunae by disagreeing with that idea......

....are you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
Click to expand...


"What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"


Didn't you state this?
"Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
Click to expand...

Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> You're not about to reveal another of your lacunae by disagreeing with that idea......
> 
> ....are you?



As a matter of fact I do agree with that idea. I don't think there is an objective moral standard, there is especially none presented in a gospel book that we should take as fact. I sure hope this doesn't lead to more ad-hominem bullshit and ranting about communism.



PoliticalChic said:


> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.



That still doesn't give me an answer about dissenting reviews. I mean, they could be wrong. You could have maybe gotten an actual rebuttal to the book instead of just comments from people who disagree and end it there.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
Click to expand...




"Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god (sic)."

Consider these 'scientific' pronouncements...

a. Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




b. The theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
"The *multiverse *(or *meta-universe*) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possibleuniverses (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them." 
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




c. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
*"Panspermia* (from Greek πᾶν _(pan)_, meaning "all", and σπέρμα _(sperma)_, meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids,asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintendedcontamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Only a fool would support these three.

Would that be a fair description of you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not about to reveal another of your lacunae by disagreeing with that idea......
> 
> ....are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact I do agree with that idea. I don't think there is an objective moral standard, there is especially none presented in a gospel book that we should take as fact. I sure hope this doesn't lead to more ad-hominem bullshit and ranting about communism.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still doesn't give me an answer about dissenting reviews. I mean, they could be wrong. You could have maybe gotten an actual rebuttal to the book instead of just comments from people who disagree and end it there.
Click to expand...



"As a matter of fact I do agree with that idea. I don't think there is an objective moral standard, there is especially none presented in a gospel book that we should take as fact."

Soooooo.....it is but one more example of a lack of understanding on your part?

Perhaps I can set you on the correct path.


The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.                                            David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge."
*If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective.  *   This, of course, was the great fallacy and flaw of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason.  It is the reason that France was turned into an abattoir with over half a million slaughtered.                    
Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side.   Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.                        Dennis Prager
T*here is no morality associated with either reason, which becomes rationalization, nor with science, which tells us what we can do, but not what we should do.*
’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.                                                                               “Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.”                                                      Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not about to reveal another of your lacunae by disagreeing with that idea......
> 
> ....are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact I do agree with that idea. I don't think there is an objective moral standard, there is especially none presented in a gospel book that we should take as fact. I sure hope this doesn't lead to more ad-hominem bullshit and ranting about communism.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still doesn't give me an answer about dissenting reviews. I mean, they could be wrong. You could have maybe gotten an actual rebuttal to the book instead of just comments from people who disagree and end it there.
Click to expand...




"That still doesn't give me an answer about dissenting reviews. I mean, they could be wrong. You could have maybe gotten an actual rebuttal to the book instead of just comments from people who disagree and end it there."


Ann Coulter has claimed this:
"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."


Would that be an accurate synopsis of your education?


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god (sic)."
> 
> Consider these 'scientific' pronouncements...
> 
> a. Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b. The theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
> "The *multiverse *(or *meta-universe*) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possibleuniverses (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
> Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
> *"Panspermia* (from Greek πᾶν _(pan)_, meaning "all", and σπέρμα _(sperma)_, meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids,asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintendedcontamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
> Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
> Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Only a fool would support these three.
> 
> Would that be a fair description of you?
Click to expand...

According to your link Stephen Hawking for instance is a proponent of the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you. But that's not even my point. I'm willing to accept the fact that we don't know and possibly will never find out what was before the Big Bang. I'm even willing to grant that some kind of omnipotent being could have started it all. Since I don't know, it's a valid hypothesis as the multiverse theory. What I'm not willing to accept is the God as portraided in any of the religious books. If an omnipotent being started the big bang fine. But all religious books try to give meaning to things wich science has proven. From the origin of the planet and live and death. To the meaning of Mars, bad harvests and thunder and lightning. To how this omnipotent being thinks and even looks. This I do not accept.


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden. David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge."



Systems before and without Christianity have existed and dealt with injustices, it's been a thing forever. Also, I would argue the Bible advocates for many injustices in the modern day, so, yeah.



PoliticalChic said:


> *If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective. * This, of course, was the great fallacy and flaw of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason. It is the reason that France was turned into an abattoir with over half a million slaughtered.



What? The French revolution was caused by dissatisfaction with the power of the monarchy and cultural changes by questioning the authority of the Church. It was the reaction to these attempted changes that caused it. I do not even understand how you can reach this conclusion.

And yes morality was made up by humans. We generally base it on what effect any given action has on ourselves and others.



PoliticalChic said:


> Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side. Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people. Dennis Prager



The morality of abortion is highly subjective. You are denying a potential child life but by denying a woman an abortion  you are forcing her to allow something else to live off of her at her expense. But this is an entirely different debate and you seem to just want to distract things.



PoliticalChic said:


> T*here is no morality associated with either reason, which becomes rationalization, nor with science, which tells us what we can do, but not what we should do.*
> 
> ’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even mos



Science is the study of nature and reason is rational thought, no shit it doesn't give us moral guidelines because that isn't their functions.

You don't seem like the type of person who would chat with or care much about people outside of your circles, how have you determined most people who don't follow your gospel specifically are not moral?

You just seem to be freaked out by the prospect of there being no objective moral precedent, you take comfort is there being a universal system all should be following.

But regardless, this got way off course. This doesn't have anything to do with the original Big Bang discussion.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god (sic)."
> 
> Consider these 'scientific' pronouncements...
> 
> a. Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b. The theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
> "The *multiverse *(or *meta-universe*) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possibleuniverses (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
> Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
> *"Panspermia* (from Greek πᾶν _(pan)_, meaning "all", and σπέρμα _(sperma)_, meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids,asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintendedcontamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
> Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
> Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Only a fool would support these three.
> 
> Would that be a fair description of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to your link Stephen Hawkings for instance is a proponent of the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you. But that's not even my point. I'm willing to accept the fact that we don't know and possibly will never find out what was before the Big Bang. I'm even willing to grant that some kind of omnipotent being could have started it all. Since I don't know, it's a valid hypothesis as the multiverse theory. What I'm not willing to accept is the God as portraided in any of the religious books. If an omnipotent being started the big bang fine. But all religious books try to give meaning to things wich science has proven. From the origin of the planet and live and death. To the meaning of Mars, bad harvests and thunder and lightning. To how this omnipotent being thinks and even looks. This I do not accept.
Click to expand...



"...the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you."

1. Actually, I don't know of anyone smarter than I.
Let's consider you, for example.
You've basically admitted that you are clueless about the Multiverse theory, yet attempt to stand with the nonsense.

In short, here it is: there are an infinite number of universes, each with a variation on the laws of nature and physics that apply here on earth.

If you doubt my description, avail yourself of this essay, by physicist Alan Lightman
The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine


2. "[Richard] Dawkins [outspoken atheist and author of 'The God Delusion], among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that *there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natu*ral laws of physics, vastly different from ours. 

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. *Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos.* And- the entire gargantuan structure *scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.*

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.” 
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter 7



"...statistical improbability...."???
God is less probable than "*an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natu*ral laws of physics, vastly different from ours."
Really??? By what metric?



Now....tell me again that you accept the Multiverse....


And, please, be sure to ask me why it is so very important for atheistic scientists to put out this nonsense.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden. David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Systems before and without Christianity have existed and dealt with injustices, it's been a thing forever. Also, I would argue the Bible advocates for many injustices in the modern day, so, yeah.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective. * This, of course, was the great fallacy and flaw of the French Revolution, the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason. It is the reason that France was turned into an abattoir with over half a million slaughtered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? The French revolution was caused by dissatisfaction with the power of the monarchy and cultural changes by questioning the authority of the Church. It was the reaction to these attempted changes that caused it. I do not even understand how you can reach this conclusion.
> 
> And yes morality was made up by humans. We generally base it on what effect any given action has on ourselves and others.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had _reason _on their side. Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people. Dennis Prager
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The morality of abortion is highly subjective. You are denying a potential child life but by denying a woman an abortion  you are forcing her to allow something else to live off of her at her expense. But this is an entirely different debate and you seem to just want to distract things.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T*here is no morality associated with either reason, which becomes rationalization, nor with science, which tells us what we can do, but not what we should do.*
> 
> ’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even mos
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is the study of nature and reason is rational thought, no shit it doesn't give us moral guidelines because that isn't their functions.
> 
> You don't seem like the type of person who would chat with or care much about people outside of your circles, how have you determined most people who don't follow your gospel specifically are not moral?
> 
> You just seem to be freaked out by the prospect of there being no objective moral precedent, you take comfort is there being a universal system all should be following.
> 
> But regardless, this got way off course. This doesn't have anything to do with the original Big Bang discussion.
Click to expand...



The French Revolution, and the dictatorships that it gave birth to, can be summed up in these words, the very antithesis to morality and religion:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."                                                                                                   Leon Trotsky


You have no problem accepting Trotsky's dictum, ......do you.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god (sic)."
> 
> Consider these 'scientific' pronouncements...
> 
> a. Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b. The theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
> "The *multiverse *(or *meta-universe*) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possibleuniverses (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
> Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
> *"Panspermia* (from Greek πᾶν _(pan)_, meaning "all", and σπέρμα _(sperma)_, meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids,asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintendedcontamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
> Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
> Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Only a fool would support these three.
> 
> Would that be a fair description of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to your link Stephen Hawkings for instance is a proponent of the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you. But that's not even my point. I'm willing to accept the fact that we don't know and possibly will never find out what was before the Big Bang. I'm even willing to grant that some kind of omnipotent being could have started it all. Since I don't know, it's a valid hypothesis as the multiverse theory. What I'm not willing to accept is the God as portraided in any of the religious books. If an omnipotent being started the big bang fine. But all religious books try to give meaning to things wich science has proven. From the origin of the planet and live and death. To the meaning of Mars, bad harvests and thunder and lightning. To how this omnipotent being thinks and even looks. This I do not accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you."
> 
> 1. Actually, I don't know of anyone smarter than I.
> Let's consider you, for example.
> You've basically admitted that you are clueless about the Multiverse theory, yet attempt to stand with the nonsense.
> 
> In short, here it is: there are an infinite number of universes, each with a variation on the laws of nature and physics that apply here on earth.
> 
> If you doubt my description, avail yourself of this essay, by physicist Alan Lightman
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> 
> 2. "[Richard] Dawkins [outspoken atheist and author of 'The God Delusion], among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that *there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natu*ral laws of physics, vastly different from ours.
> 
> Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. *Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos.* And- the entire gargantuan structure *scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.*
> 
> Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
> Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter 7
> 
> 
> 
> "...statistical improbability...."???
> God is less probable than "*an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natu*ral laws of physics, vastly different from ours."
> Really??? By what metric?
> 
> 
> 
> Now....tell me again that you accept the Multiverse....
> 
> 
> And, please, be sure to ask me why it is so very important for atheistic scientists to put out this nonsense.
Click to expand...

I've seen your post before politicalchic, I promise you there are quite a lot of people smarter then you. I'll even claim that MOST people are smarter then you. As to me being smarter then you, I probably am, I'm very certain that I'm wiser then you. I'm wiser because "I don't know" is not something I'm ashamed of. If you read my post correctly you would have noticed that I didn't defend the multiverse theory. I said that a created universe was an equally valid assumption in absence of proof. So when you try to call me a fool, just know that to me, someone who blusters like you do in arguments, is actually saying, " my arguments are weak", if they weren't weak you wouldn't try to put people on the defensive and try to win on merit. And btw hypothesising is the first step in the scientific process, so why shouldn't they try to put it out and try to prove it?


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> The French Revolution, and the dictatorships that it gave birth to, can be summed up in these words, the very antithesis to morality and religion:
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> You have no problem accepting Trotsky's dictum, ......do you.



Like I've been saying, morality can be very relative. It may be contradictory to YOUR morality, but I assure you these dictators were just as certain as you they knew what was right as well.

Well, I sure would like it if humans continued existing, because I'm human and it would suck if this species all died. I certainly don't condone murder.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> The Big Bang is supported. What you don't seem to get is that we don't need to know the exact cause to know something happened, you think that just because we don't have a specific explanation means the existence of the result is completely invalidated.



Yes I see how the scientific wizard, namely yourself, is supporting the mystical mysteries that defy explanation in one hand and his magical teapot in the other.



Epitah said:


> Allow me to clarify.
> You haven't shown me any information of value.



So now the universe has nothing of value for you... Then why are you still here?



Epitah said:


> I don't see a reason to be skeptical of the Big Bang itself. I do however see a reason to be skeptical of anyone asserting any given cause without supporting it.



You see no reason to be skeptical when scientists say that the natural laws of physics did not exist in the first few seconds after the big bang



Epitah said:


> Have you just admitted you're just naturally drawn to explanation that sounds the simplest and easiest to digest to you instead of just admitting you don't know









Well gee... I don't know. What does Occam's Razor say about this dilemma?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought*: *"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...
Click to expand...


If God is eternal then God had no beginning and will have no end.






*****SMILE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Yes I see how the scientific wizard, namely yourself, is supporting the mystical mysteries that defy explanation in one hand and his magical teapot in the other.



I'm no scientist, I've never claimed I was. And no, the Big Bang does not defy explanation, we just don't have a proper one. I still don't think you understand the concept of burden of proof here.



Damaged Eagle said:


> So now the universe has nothing of value for you... Then why are you still here?



You've just stated you're a pantheist and argued over science. That's not showing me the universe. Ideas of a god, or the universe embodying a god-like entity are useless to me.



Damaged Eagle said:


> You see no reason to be skeptical when scientists say that the natural laws of physics did not exist in the first few seconds after the big bang



Skepticism is one of the things science is all about, if we had no doubt we'd have no reliable science. When did I say the laws of physics didn't apply seconds after the BB? I said it's fuzzy to how they apply before it happened.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Well gee... I don't know. What does Occam's Razor say about this dilemma?




you're saying a miracle happening isn't making a bigger assumption? how is assuming a miracle happening caused the big bang less of an assumption than saying the big bang happened but we don't know what caused it?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
Click to expand...


I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....

...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...

...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?





*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> I'm no scientist,...



Well that's obvious... Which means all you have is your faith in the wizards of scientific consensus.



Epitah said:


> ...I've never claimed I was.



Has the world ended from the damnation of man-made global warming yet as predicted by your great high priest Al Gore of scientific consensus yet?

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> And no, the Big Bang does not defy explanation, we just don't have a proper one.



Well that's convenient... Yet as I recall you consider it 'scientific fact'.

Do you always blindly follow things with blind faith singing Hallelujah and crusading against anyone who might dissent with your faith in the great word of 'scientific consensus'?



Epitah said:


> I still don't think you understand the concept of burden of proof here.



Do you? (See above responses in this post and contemplate/meditate on them.)



Epitah said:


> You've just stated you're a pantheist and argued over science.



????? I think this requires decryption on your part for the rest of us. 



Epitah said:


> That's not showing me the universe.



Showing you the universe in which way?



Epitah said:


> Ideas of a god, or the universe embodying a god-like entity are useless to me.



In what way do you mean 'embodies a god-like entity'?



Epitah said:


> Skepticism is one of the things science is all about, if we had no doubt we'd have no reliable science.



Yet you are more than willing to blindly follow your wizards of scientific consensus as a faithful follower in a holy crusade against the dissenters.




Epitah said:


> When did I say the laws of physics didn't apply seconds after the BB? I said it's fuzzy to how they apply before it happened.



No you didn't and that is my mistake...

Well they're pretty fuzzy for a few seconds after the Big Bang occurred also if you must know.

So how does that fit into the great scheme of scientific consensus when all the natural laws of physics do not exist?

Does it mean that the cat is half-dead or half-alive as god rolls the die? 



Epitah said:


> you're saying a miracle happening isn't making a bigger assumption? how is assuming a miracle happening caused the big bang less of an assumption than saying the big bang happened but we don't know what caused it?



I've already given the definition of a miracle a few times in this thread...

...Perhaps you should go back a read them.





*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> Well that's obvious... Which means all you have is your faith in the wizards of scientific consensus.



You don't need to be a scientist to study and understand scientific theories and models.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Has the world ended from the damnation of man-made global warming yet as predicted by your great high priest Al Gore of scientific consensus yet?



What does that have to do with this?



Damaged Eagle said:


> Well that's convenient... Yet as I recall you consider it 'scientific fact'.
> 
> Do you always blindly follow things with blind faith singing Hallelujah and crusading against anyone who might dissent with your faith in the great word of 'scientific consensus'?



I don't think you understand this yet.

We know the Big Bang happened, we have evidence that leads us to that conclusion. It is the most reliable scientific model of how the universe came to be.  Just because we don't have an explanation of how it happened does NOT undermine the evidence we have. You still think that people who accept the Big Bang need to prove what the cause is even though no one has made an assertion of what it is specifically, all we are saying is that there is one. If anyone is saying there is a god or it's magic particles smashing together and exploding or whatever other thing your imagination can come up with, they would need to prove it and everyone rejecting the claim is justified in doing so until that proof is given. They are not the ones who need to disprove the claim, because otherwise we'd just have to accept anything that we can't technically disprove.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Showing you the universe in which way?



I don't know, you're the one telling me you showed me the universe. I haven't gotten a damn thing out of you other than you telling me you feel things. And as your feelings aren't verifiable, it's pretty useless info.



Damaged Eagle said:


> In what way do you mean 'embodies a god-like entity'?



As far as I know about pantheism, the universe embodies some kind of godlike entity.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Yet you are more than willing to blindly follow your wizards of scientific consensus as a faithful follower in a holy crusade against the dissenters.



Because there is an understanding of Science, and they add up with what has been presented by scientific studies. That's not faith when science has been presented as the best way to understand and research reality and has not required faith in the past.



Damaged Eagle said:


> No you didn't and that is my mistake...
> 
> Well they're pretty fuzzy for a few seconds after the Big Bang occurred also if you must know.
> 
> So how does that fit into the great scheme of scientific consensus when all the natural laws of physics do not exist?
> 
> Does it mean that the cat is half-dead or half-alive as god rolls the die?



Yeah, screw the thing I said earlier this is probably going to require some decryption for everyone but yourself. Quantum physics applied to the Big Bang when it was too small for regular physics.



Damaged Eagle said:


> I've already given the definition of a miracle a few times in this thread...
> 
> ...Perhaps you should go back a read them.



what is the definition of a miracle in your mind


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?



the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."  The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??



That's not even my point. I find it laughable that on one hand religious freaks think evolution and the BBT are nuts, but think this invisible deity appeared out of nowhere from nothing (but will find all sorts of excuses to say otherwise "oh, he was always there", or "it's a metaphysical thing that is beyond your comprehension" BS) to try and justify their fluffy beliefs.

As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me. My lack of belief has nothing to do with any political philosophy. It's more about common sense. As for your link. Bullshit. Morality, good and evil etc are not a monopoly held by any religion. Devout Christians, Muslims and Buddhists have all killed indiscriminently in the name of their god...nobody is innocent.


----------



## Dr Grump

Damaged Eagle said:


> [
> If God is eternal then God had no beginning and will have no end.



Of course. Another cop out....


----------



## forkup

Damaged Eagle said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....
> 
> ...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...
> 
> ...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?
> 
> View attachment 80187
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god (sic)."
> 
> Consider these 'scientific' pronouncements...
> 
> a. Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b. The theory is the Multiverse.....that laws of physics vary with an infinite number of universes.....
> "The *multiverse *(or *meta-universe*) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possibleuniverses (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, andenergy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."
> Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. Or Hoyle's thesis that 'aliens from space' created our universe...
> *"Panspermia* (from Greek πᾶν _(pan)_, meaning "all", and σπέρμα _(sperma)_, meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed bymeteoroids,asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids,[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintendedcontamination by microorganisms.[4][5]
> Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) were influential proponents of panspermia.[20][21]....."
> Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Only a fool would support these three.
> 
> Would that be a fair description of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to your link Stephen Hawkings for instance is a proponent of the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you. But that's not even my point. I'm willing to accept the fact that we don't know and possibly will never find out what was before the Big Bang. I'm even willing to grant that some kind of omnipotent being could have started it all. Since I don't know, it's a valid hypothesis as the multiverse theory. What I'm not willing to accept is the God as portraided in any of the religious books. If an omnipotent being started the big bang fine. But all religious books try to give meaning to things wich science has proven. From the origin of the planet and live and death. To the meaning of Mars, bad harvests and thunder and lightning. To how this omnipotent being thinks and even looks. This I do not accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...the multiverse theory, wich is a better endorsment for it then, the fact that you think it's rubbish, since it's pretty safe to assume that he's smarter then you."
> 
> 1. Actually, I don't know of anyone smarter than I.
> Let's consider you, for example.
> You've basically admitted that you are clueless about the Multiverse theory, yet attempt to stand with the nonsense.
> 
> In short, here it is: there are an infinite number of universes, each with a variation on the laws of nature and physics that apply here on earth.
> 
> If you doubt my description, avail yourself of this essay, by physicist Alan Lightman
> The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
> 
> 
> 2. "[Richard] Dawkins [outspoken atheist and author of 'The God Delusion], among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that *there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natu*ral laws of physics, vastly different from ours.
> 
> Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. *Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos.* And- the entire gargantuan structure *scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.*
> 
> Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
> Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter 7
> 
> 
> 
> "...statistical improbability...."???
> God is less probable than "*an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natu*ral laws of physics, vastly different from ours."
> Really??? By what metric?
> 
> 
> 
> Now....tell me again that you accept the Multiverse....
> 
> 
> And, please, be sure to ask me why it is so very important for atheistic scientists to put out this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen your post before politicalchic, I promise you there are quite a lot of people smarter then you. I'll even claim that MOST people are smarter then you. As to me being smarter then you, I probably am, I'm very certain that I'm wiser then you. I'm wiser because "I don't know" is not something I'm ashamed of. If you read my post correctly you would have noticed that I didn't defend the multiverse theory. I said that a created universe was an equally valid assumption in absence of proof. So when you try to call me a fool, just know that to me, someone who blusters like you do in arguments, is actually saying, " my arguments are weak", if they weren't weak you wouldn't try to put people on the defensive and try to win on merit. And btw hypothesising is the first step in the scientific process, so why shouldn't they try to put it out and try to prove it?
Click to expand...



"I've seen your post before politicalchic, I promise you there are quite a lot of people smarter then you."

Well......let's investigate that premise....specifically the cases of you and your chosen champion...Stephen Hawkings.
You posted this:
"...Stephen Hawkings for instance is a proponent of the multiverse theory, wich (sic) is a better endorsment (sic) for it then,...."

Really?

1. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

2. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.

Oh....and, did I mention to you that when I am not revealing the asininity of posters like yourself, I am busy spinning straw into gold?
You believe that.........don't you?




Shall I await your 'proof'....or shall I proceed with a long and eventful life, with both of us understanding that you are a moron?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French Revolution, and the dictatorships that it gave birth to, can be summed up in these words, the very antithesis to morality and religion:
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> You have no problem accepting Trotsky's dictum, ......do you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've been saying, morality can be very relative. It may be contradictory to YOUR morality, but I assure you these dictators were just as certain as you they knew what was right as well.
> 
> Well, I sure would like it if humans continued existing, because I'm human and it would suck if this species all died. I certainly don't condone murder.
Click to expand...



"As I've been saying"....not "Like I've been saying..."

If morality has no eternal basis....then you should fear the day that some Leftist government decides to put to death all those with less than a 90 IQ.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> If God is eternal then God had no beginning and will have no end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Another cop out....
Click to expand...



You imbecile...he just gave you the definition of the term.

There is no other understanding of the term "God."



And, If you are unsure of the meaning of "imbecile," it is listed in the dictionary under your picture.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.
Click to expand...



Where did it come from?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."  The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even my point. I find it laughable that on one hand religious freaks think evolution and the BBT are nuts, but think this invisible deity appeared out of nowhere from nothing (but will find all sorts of excuses to say otherwise "oh, he was always there", or "it's a metaphysical thing that is beyond your comprehension" BS) to try and justify their fluffy beliefs.
> 
> As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me. My lack of belief has nothing to do with any political philosophy. It's more about common sense. As for your link. Bullshit. Morality, good and evil etc are not a monopoly held by any religion. Devout Christians, Muslims and Buddhists have all killed indiscriminently in the name of their god...nobody is innocent.
Click to expand...




"As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."

Au contraire

It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....


The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...

Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.

The religion has a god, it is government.




It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
.*..is  government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism, *

*....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer,  and by which governing must be judged?*


Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?





Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....

Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who      exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?"
> 
> Wait…let me consult the Da Vinci parchments so I can figure that post out….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> Of course you are wrong about that, too.
> 
> I provided the name of Krauss' book....
> You should read more carefully.
> 
> 
> There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, including_The Physics of Star Trek _and _A Universe from Nothing_."
> Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Krauss has said *"we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."*
> Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...
> 
> "....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.
> 
> ...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....
> 
> Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: _nihil fit ex nihilo..._ "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."
> 
> 
> The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....
> 
> ...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...
> 
> ...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?
> 
> View attachment 80187
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.
Click to expand...



Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.

They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.

“We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


Do you understand this?
".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” 

He is laughing at fools like you.*


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to figure out. You talking about the lack of perceived objective moral standards without a god is revealing of your mindset.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how I'm supposed to advocate for the quote here when I do not even fully understand the context in which it's being said, there is probably a misunderstanding of what "nothing" means in this context. Nothing in physics means the lowest possible state something can be, how do you even conceive nothing?
> I'm gonna need to give this book a read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....
> 
> ...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...
> 
> ...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?
> 
> View attachment 80187
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.
> 
> They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> 
> Do you understand this?
> ".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”
> 
> He is laughing at fools like you.*
Click to expand...

Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin,  Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "What do dissenting reviews of a book have to do with it's credibility?"
> 
> 
> Didn't you state this?
> "Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"
> 
> And, twice now....I've shown you to be totally incorrect.
> The idea is prominent in the atheistic/fake science realm.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....
> 
> ...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...
> 
> ...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?
> 
> View attachment 80187
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.
> 
> They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> 
> Do you understand this?
> ".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”
> 
> He is laughing at fools like you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin,  Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.
Click to expand...



1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!

2. The easily led say things like this:
"You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."

Now...back to reality:
a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?

b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a religious zealot would try to equate the lack of knowledge as proof for the existence of god. As has been said numerous times in this OP by different people. Saying that, if science can't prove something, saying that therefore God is the only possible explanation is an insane argument. There is plenty of things science can't prove yet, and there used to be a whole lot more. That's the point of science, to fill those gaps in knowledge. Religion on the other hand has the opposite objective. Every extra piece of knowledge science can prove is another nail in the coffin. That's why you still have people fighting against evolution and the idea of the big bang. 2 things wich have been proven thouroughly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....
> 
> ...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...
> 
> ...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?
> 
> View attachment 80187
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.
> 
> They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> 
> Do you understand this?
> ".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”
> 
> He is laughing at fools like you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin,  Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
> I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!
> 
> 2. The easily led say things like this:
> "You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
Click to expand...

I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven, the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> You don't need to be a scientist to study and understand scientific theories and models.



When they're laid out for the layman perhaps... That's only so long as the scientist is being truthful about all their findings and aren't being intentionally deceiving.



Epitah said:


> What does that have to do with this?



Everything.



Epitah said:


> I don't think you understand this yet.



I'm sure you're wrong.



Epitah said:


> We know the Big Bang happened, we have evidence that leads us to that conclusion. It is the most reliable scientific model of how the universe came to be.  Just because we don't have an explanation of how it happened does NOT undermine the evidence we have. You still think that people who accept the Big Bang need to prove what the cause is even though no one has made an assertion of what it is specifically, all we are saying is that there is one. If anyone is saying there is a god or it's magic particles smashing together and exploding or whatever other thing your imagination can come up with, they would need to prove it and everyone rejecting the claim is justified in doing so until that proof is given. They are not the ones who need to disprove the claim, because otherwise we'd just have to accept anything that we can't technically disprove.



My proof is all around you. The universe exists therefore God exists.

Have I made any other claims about God?

What part of Pantheist don't you understand?



Epitah said:


> I don't know, you're the one telling me you showed me the universe. I haven't gotten a damn thing out of you other than you telling me you feel things. And as your feelings aren't verifiable, it's pretty useless info.



So if I touch (feel), hear, see, smell, or taste, something my 'feelings' aren't verifiable now?

Then how do you know anything exists?

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> As far as I know about pantheism, the universe embodies some kind of godlike entity.



Gee... That must have took a lot of thought to restate the same thing you said already.



Epitah said:


> Because there is an understanding of Science, and they add up with what has been presented by scientific studies. That's not faith when science has been presented as the best way to understand and research reality and has not required faith in the past.



It's faith when people, such as yourself, simply follow the and support the scientific consensus without understanding the underlying science itself.



Epitah said:


> Yeah, screw the thing I said earlier this is probably going to require some decryption for everyone but yourself. Quantum physics applied to the Big Bang when it was too small for regular physics.



Are you sure? You admit that classical physics did not apply during that time... Prove to us all that quantum physics applied any better.



Epitah said:


> what is the definition of a miracle in your mind



I took the time to go back and look at your remarks on the Big Bang moment. If it's too much trouble for you to go back and look for my definition of miracle I'm perfectly willing to continue making you look like a fool. Shall we discuss Newton's Laws some more or move on to another scientific principle and see what your knowledge is like in that area?







*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The French Revolution, and the dictatorships that it gave birth to, can be summed up in these words, the very antithesis to morality and religion:
> 
> "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
> 
> 
> You have no problem accepting Trotsky's dictum, ......do you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've been saying, morality can be very relative. It may be contradictory to YOUR morality, but I assure you these dictators were just as certain as you they knew what was right as well.
> 
> Well, I sure would like it if humans continued existing, because I'm human and it would suck if this species all died. I certainly don't condone murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "As I've been saying"....not "Like I've been saying..."
> 
> If morality has no eternal basis....then you should fear the day that some Leftist government decides to put to death all those with less than a 90 IQ.
Click to expand...


You know a common trend I've noticed online is that when people begin to run out of arguments they begin to attack trivial grammar mistakes as a feeble attempt to discredit the other.

Why not come up with an actual, compelling argument for something instead of just ranting about lefties more? You seem to fall back on this a ton, you act like a political cartoon depiction of a right winger. Yes, different ideologies come in to power all the time, so what? Scared of getting executed under your conditions?



PoliticalChic said:


> You imbecile...he just gave you the definition of the term.
> 
> There is no other understanding of the term "God."



lots of people have different ideas of what god is, there are plenty of different definitions 



PoliticalChic said:


> Where did it come from?



We don't know, but that is better than saying GODIDIT.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.
Click to expand...



Is it now? Where's your proof on that? Can you be certain that the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics applies before the universe began and afterwards? If you do then...







Prove it!

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> "As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."
> 
> Au contraire
> 
> It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....
> 
> 
> The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...
> 
> Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.
> 
> The religion has a god, it is government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
> .*..is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism, *
> 
> *....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?*
> 
> 
> Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....
> 
> Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
> And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.



you don't even have an argument anymore



PoliticalChic said:


> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”



Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.



PoliticalChic said:


> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.



I'd love to hear what it is.

do you even know what you're saying anymore


----------



## Damaged Eagle

forkup said:


> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot.



That's interesting... So anyone who has a belief in God is a religious zealot?



forkup said:


> If you would be a rational person,...



I see... So everyone who believes in God is not rational according to you.



forkup said:


> ...the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one.



What makes you think that I wouldn't be interested in discovering how God preformed his miracle?

*****CHUCKLE*****



forkup said:


> Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary.



You make assumptions on untested proof and no investigation of the matter. You sir are no better than the people you discriminate against.



forkup said:


> That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist.



Yes... People like you are what caused the dark ages.



forkup said:


> An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.



So has the world ended from the heat death predicted by your global warming theology preached at the alter of scientific consensus to their faithful followers yet?






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did it come from?
Click to expand...

.

_*PC: Where did it come from?*_

from the previous cycle - all existence in combination





PoliticalChic said:


> There is no other understanding of the term "God."




the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...







a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.

.


----------



## Epitah

Damaged Eagle said:


> When they're laid out for the layman perhaps... That's only so long as the scientist is being truthful about all their findings and aren't being intentionally deceiving.



for what insane reason would scientists have to lie about the big bang

seems like you just wanted to take an arbitrary shot at global warming for whatever reason



Damaged Eagle said:


> My proof is all around you. The universe exists therefore God exists.
> 
> Have I made any other claims about God?
> 
> What part of Pantheist don't you understand?



so if the universe itself is god what is the point of calling it god? seems like an pointless label



Damaged Eagle said:


> So if I touch (feel), hear, see, smell, or taste, something my 'feelings' aren't verifiable now?
> 
> Then how do you know anything exists?



Thoughts aren't testable. Sensations are, however.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Are you sure? You admit that classical physics did not apply during that time... Prove to us all that quantum physics applied any better.



I don't have the biggest understanding of that yet but quantum physics deal with particles on a subatomic level.



Damaged Eagle said:


> I took the time to go back and look at your remarks on the Big Bang moment. If it's too much trouble for you to go back and look for my definition of miracle I'm perfectly willing to continue making you look like a fool. Shall we discuss Newton's Laws some more or move on to another scientific principle and see what your knowledge is like in that area?



I'm not going to sift through several pages just to find one definition it would take you absolutely no effort to do I'm just going to run under the assumption that you interpret a really big coincidence as a miracle.


----------



## forkup

Damaged Eagle said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting... So anyone who has a belief in God is a religious zealot?
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would be a rational person,...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see... So everyone who believes in God is not rational according to you.
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think that I wouldn't be interested in discovering how God preformed his miracle?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make assumptions on untested proof and no investigation of the matter. You sir are no better than the people you discriminate against.
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... People like you are what caused the dark ages.
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So has the world ended from the heat death predicted by your global warming theology preached at the alter of scientific consensus to their faithful followers yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
wow sentence by sentence, I'll return the favor.
-You are a religious zealot if you make the jump from science can't prove something so it HAS to be god. There are plenty of religious people who don't make that jump. They'll try to find an explanation within science before they assume God is responsible.
-This is the rational way of thinking so not all religious people are zealots, just people who will assume God is in every crevice where science hasn't got a proven explanation for.
-The word miracle in itself implies that something falls out of the realm of explanation. So no, if you use the word miracle that means you are not intrested in digging further, digging further might give an explanation within science. Invalidating God at that point.
-How would somebody like me cause the dark ages? Was that just because you needed to do it sentence by sentence? I don't promote ignorance. I like to think I want to promote endless curiosity. If you have a different view fine, but then I insist you try to explain your line of reasoning.
-Global warming as I'm pretty sure you are well aware is considered a gradual process. So saying see nobody's dead yet is both false and intellectually dishonest.
And the argument is simply stupid to begin with. I never claimed that science is faultless. It has made plenty of mistakes in past, present and will undoubtable make more in the future. The difference between science and religion is though, that science has a process to correct it's mistakes. It's called testing and there is not a single scientific theory. Proven or otherwise wich is exempt from it. Religion has no such mechanism because it is untestable.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....
> 
> ...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...
> 
> ...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?
> 
> View attachment 80187
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.
> 
> They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> 
> Do you understand this?
> ".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”
> 
> He is laughing at fools like you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin,  Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
> I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!
> 
> 2. The easily led say things like this:
> "You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting.  I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?
Click to expand...



1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????)  to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."

Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.

If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.

2. "


forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see... Now I'm a religious zealot.....
> 
> ...Too which religion do I exactly belong?...
> 
> ...Is there some great gathering of people like myself telling you how to live your lives and creating laws that violate the beliefs of other cultures, like the progressive atheists do, that I don't know about?
> 
> View attachment 80187
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.
> 
> They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> 
> Do you understand this?
> ".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”
> 
> He is laughing at fools like you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin,  Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
> I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!
> 
> 2. The easily led say things like this:
> "You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven, the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?
Click to expand...




1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????)  to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."

Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.

If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.


2." I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven..."
Answered earlier, as follows:
*“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas
*
a. The 'proof' for theology is faith.
b. What the easily led....you.....fail to recognize is that what you call 'science' is based on nothing else but faith....e.g.,....

*The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:*

The Multiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming


Definition of 'the easily led'.....any who accept the above as science.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."
> 
> Au contraire
> 
> It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....
> 
> 
> The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...
> 
> Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.
> 
> The religion has a god, it is government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
> .*..is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism, *
> 
> *....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?*
> 
> 
> Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....
> 
> Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
> And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't even have an argument anymore
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?
> 
> If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd love to hear what it is.
> 
> do you even know what you're saying anymore
Click to expand...



"Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"

Certainly not behind closed doors....'else how can they bring fools like you into the fold.

"In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one an -other on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven
Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak uniﬁcation, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a ﬁgure of great stature. 
“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”.                                                                                                                                                                                                            In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientiﬁc justiﬁcations for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?"
David Berlinski


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."
> 
> Au contraire
> 
> It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....
> 
> 
> The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...
> 
> Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.
> 
> The religion has a god, it is government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
> .*..is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism, *
> 
> *....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?*
> 
> 
> Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....
> 
> Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
> And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't even have an argument anymore
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?
> 
> If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd love to hear what it is.
> 
> do you even know what you're saying anymore
Click to expand...



"If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it."

I am a strong supporter of science.

What you endorse, is fake science, it is in the service of Leftism, and out to attack religion.

Let's be clear.....if it does not involve the Scientific Method....it is a misnomer to call it science.
*The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:*

The Multiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Global Warming

Hence....examples of fake doctrines with an ulterior motive.
Every one of them.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did it come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no other understanding of the term "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



_*PC: Where did it come from?*_

"from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"

And....before it was in 'existence'?


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."
> 
> Au contraire
> 
> It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....
> 
> 
> The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...
> 
> Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.
> 
> The religion has a god, it is government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
> .*..is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism, *
> 
> *....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?*
> 
> 
> Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....
> 
> Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
> And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't even have an argument anymore
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?
> 
> If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd love to hear what it is.
> 
> do you even know what you're saying anymore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"
> 
> Certainly not behind closed doors....'else how can they bring fools like you into the fold.
> 
> "In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one an -other on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven
> Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak uniﬁcation, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a ﬁgure of great stature.
> “Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”.                                                                                                                                                                                                            In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientiﬁc justiﬁcations for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?"
> David Berlinski
Click to expand...


Yes, lots of scientists and rational thinkers happen to disagree, and in some cases dislike religion, but it sounds like a ridiculous idea that scientific propositions are brought up to discredit religion.

If divine intervention was just as good of a system as science we would be using it to study the world already. Also, are divine beliefs somehow more substantiated than scientific models?


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's be clear.....if it does not involve the Scientific Method....it is a misnomer to call it science.
> *The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:*
> 
> The Multiverse Theory
> String theory
> The Higgs boson
> The universe created out of nothing.
> Darwin's Theory of Evolution
> Global Warming
> 
> Hence....examples of fake doctrines with an ulterior motive.
> Every one of them.



Ahahaha. The theory of evolution is basically irrefutable at this point. We've observed evolution and the amount of evidence for it is phenomenal.

We don't don't accept the string theory, it's theoretical.

We never said the universe came from nothing, we just don't know.

The multiverse theory has not been confirmed, it's still theoretical.

You don't seem to know much about these things.

Also, they're doctrines now? lol


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did it come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no other understanding of the term "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> "from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'?
Click to expand...

.


PoliticalChic said:


> And....before it was in 'existence'



I answered your question - all existence in combination ...

your response is oxymoronic.


I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?

.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.
> 
> They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> 
> Do you understand this?
> ".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”
> 
> He is laughing at fools like you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin,  Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
> I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!
> 
> 2. The easily led say things like this:
> "You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting.  I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????)  to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."
> 
> Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.
> 
> If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.
> 
> 2. "
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say, science can't prove something so God did it. You are a religious zealot. If you would be a rational person, the answer would be. Science can't prove something so lets try to either prove or come out with another hypothesis and try to prove that one. Your answer seems to be. So it's God and no further investigation is necessary. That my friend is what caused the dark ages to persist. An attitude that religion was the highest authority and anything that even remotely seemed capable of challeging religious beliefs was violenty supressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.
> 
> They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> 
> Do you understand this?
> ".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”
> 
> He is laughing at fools like you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin,  Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
> I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!
> 
> 2. The easily led say things like this:
> "You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven, the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????)  to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."
> 
> Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.
> 
> If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.
> 
> 
> 2." I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven..."
> Answered earlier, as follows:
> *“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas
> *
> a. The 'proof' for theology is faith.
> b. What the easily led....you.....fail to recognize is that what you call 'science' is based on nothing else but faith....e.g.,....
> 
> *The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:*
> 
> The Multiverse Theory
> String theory
> The Higgs boson
> The universe created out of nothing.
> Darwin's Theory of Evolution
> Global Warming
> 
> 
> Definition of 'the easily led'.....any who accept the above as science.
Click to expand...

1.
Scientists Search for Evidence of the Multiverse in the Big Bang’s Afterglow This is one such research project.
Physicists create world’s first multiverse of universes in the lab | ExtremeTech another one
This is an area wich is researched quite extensively.
2. So you are litteraly saying there is no proof it is simply true. It's circular reasoning at it's most stupid. It also is a complete cop out. You do not need to prove anything, you do reserve the right to make me prove everything. I'll deal with it for a while but it's gonna get old in a hurry.
3. So lets talk science- Multiverse as I said before is not a mature theory yet at the moment it's an hypothesis. It might be right it might be wrong. saying it's faith probably is a bridge to far but it's also not competely without merit. In effect multiverses offers a possible explanation to certain observable phenomena. Wich is more then can be said for religion because nothing we observe in my book point to a supreme being. But that's personal opinion so I'll grant you that.
-String theory is another one of these hypothesis it provides possible explanations for things we cn observe, facets of this are researched in the large hadron collider
-  Wich brings me to the Higgs Boson, predicted by string theory, you know the thing you say is faith ,it has been discovered so calling it faith is wrong
Three years after its discovery, physicists are still fascinated by the Higgs boson’s secrets
-  Universe created out of nothing? Science doesn't claim that alone, there are plenty of hypothesis but nothing has been proven. How can you say something is faith, when most scientist today actually claim "they don't know at the moment"
- Evolution. I just had about 100 posts back and forth with James Bond it ended up with him eventually confirming every assertion Darwin made. It's been proven in every conceivable way. In the lab, in the field, in the fossil record, on microcellular level,  with actual physical changes in species. Using genetics, paleontoligy, biochemistry, geoligy, bioligy. So when you say it's faith, it seems to me you either now nothing about any of these sciences or are simply unwilling to accept it's conclusions.
- Global warming, I had a discussion about that with you before I remember that you couldn't come with one credible objection to it. Even the sources you did give in some instances disagreed with you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Epitah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."
> 
> Au contraire
> 
> It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....
> 
> 
> The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...
> 
> Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.
> 
> The religion has a god, it is government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
> .*..is government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism, *
> 
> *....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer, and by which governing must be judged?*
> 
> 
> Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....
> 
> Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
> And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't even have an argument anymore
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?
> 
> If you've got a better system for understanding the world than science, I'd love to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd love to hear what it is.
> 
> do you even know what you're saying anymore
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"
> 
> Certainly not behind closed doors....'else how can they bring fools like you into the fold.
> 
> "In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one an -other on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven
> Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak uniﬁcation, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a ﬁgure of great stature.
> “Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”.                                                                                                                                                                                                            In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientiﬁc justiﬁcations for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?"
> David Berlinski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, lots of scientists and rational thinkers happen to disagree, and in some cases dislike religion, but it sounds like a ridiculous idea that scientific propositions are brought up to discredit religion.
> 
> If divine intervention was just as good of a system as science we would be using it to study the world already. Also, are divine beliefs somehow more substantiated than scientific models?
Click to expand...



Do you notice a pattern?

You write "Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"


....and I jam your words back down your throat.


Aren't you embarrasses at your own ignorance?


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.
> 
> They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> 
> Do you understand this?
> ".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”
> 
> He is laughing at fools like you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin,  Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
> I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!
> 
> 2. The easily led say things like this:
> "You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting.  I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????)  to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."
> 
> Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.
> 
> If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.
> 
> 2. "
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the fake scientists....the one who try to use science to debase religion, laugh at fools like you.
> 
> They admit that they make up fables....and you believe them.
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of* the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,*” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of *the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” *We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> 
> 
> Do you understand this?
> ".....*the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”
> 
> He is laughing at fools like you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis.Darwin,  Gallileo, Einstein, Pasteur, Boltzman(inventor of atomic theory) where all laughed at for ideas they had, ideas wich have been proven today. The point is what I made to eagle. You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith. You even call it that. It is the very antisynthesis of science. In your wikipedia page you presented, there was a paragraph of an attempt to prove multiverses, it was rebuffed but it does mean attempts are being made to prove the hypothesis. There might be a time when science will give up on the idea and then another idea will be put forewarths and it will then have the same responsibility of burden of proof. If you want God to be accepted, it is nesecary that that hypothesis goes trough the same process and take the same risk, that every hypothesis in science takes. Namely to be utterly and completely destroyed. If you are not willing to do it, you can not ask rational people to accept it. You can not use it as an alternitive for accepted science, and you sure as hell have no right to try to teach it to kids instead of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1."Ah, a lot of accepted scientific theories started out as far fetched hypothesis."
> I suppose you're taking a shot at my ability to spin straw into gold!
> 
> 2. The easily led say things like this:
> "You START out with a totaly unprovable, untestable hypothesis. And you not only accept, but want other people to accept that theory on faith."
> 
> Now...back to reality:
> a. What evidence do either of you have for the absurd view that there are an infinite number of universes, each of which have some permutation of the laws of physics....e.g., where objects are repelled by the mass of the planet on which they appear?
> 
> b. Science is based on empirical data....that determined by test (the Scientific Method). Please, provide the tests which indicate the very opposite of the laws of physics as revealed here on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm easily led??? Wow I'm a complete sceptic to anything I can't prove. As I said twice and will repeat again because you seem particulary pigheaded. I don't perscribe to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet. IF they are ever able to get it tested I will believe it, until then I don't rank it above intresting. I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven, the Christian god is proven wrong and all you seem to be willing to do is attack what I say without ever putting a thaught of your own forewarths. This is called negative proof and it gets old. So my question to you is, why do you hold God to be true? And why do you think God is a more likely explanation of the beginning of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. " I don't perscribe (WHAT?????)  to the multiverse theory, because it hasn't been proven. It's an hypothesis that is currently being researched by some of the smartest people on this planet."
> 
> Please....describe that 'research' to which you refer.
> 
> If you cannot.....you are well on your way to being rewarded with the epitaph "FOOL" on your tombstone.
> 
> 
> 2." I do notice though that you don't really attack the premise of my posts. Namely that God is unproven..."
> Answered earlier, as follows:
> *“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas
> *
> a. The 'proof' for theology is faith.
> b. What the easily led....you.....fail to recognize is that what you call 'science' is based on nothing else but faith....e.g.,....
> 
> *The following....based not on evidence...but on faith:*
> 
> The Multiverse Theory
> String theory
> The Higgs boson
> The universe created out of nothing.
> Darwin's Theory of Evolution
> Global Warming
> 
> 
> Definition of 'the easily led'.....any who accept the above as science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.
> Scientists Search for Evidence of the Multiverse in the Big Bang’s Afterglow This is one such research project.
> Physicists create world’s first multiverse of universes in the lab | ExtremeTech another one
> This is an area wich is researched quite extensively.
> 2. So you are litteraly saying there is no proof it is simply true. It's circular reasoning at it's most stupid. It also is a complete cop out. You do not need to prove anything, you do reserve the right to make me prove everything. I'll deal with it for a while but it's gonna get old in a hurry.
> 3. So lets talk science- Multiverse as I said before is not a mature theory yet at the moment it's an hypothesis. It might be right it might be wrong. saying it's faith probably is a bridge to far but it's also not competely without merit. In effect multiverses offers a possible explanation to certain observable phenomena. Wich is more then can be said for religion because nothing we observe in my book point to a supreme being. But that's personal opinion so I'll grant you that.
> -String theory is another one of these hypothesis it provides possible explanations for things we cn observe, facets of this are researched in the large hadron collider
> -  Wich brings me to the Higgs Boson, predicted by string theory, you know the thing you say is faith ,it has been discovered so calling it faith is wrong
> Three years after its discovery, physicists are still fascinated by the Higgs boson’s secrets
> -  Universe created out of nothing? Science doesn't claim that alone, there are plenty of hypothesis but nothing has been proven. How can you say something is faith, when most scientist today actually claim "they don't know at the moment"
> - Evolution. I just had about 100 posts back and forth with James Bond it ended up with him eventually confirming every assertion Darwin made. It's been proven in every conceivable way. In the lab, in the field, in the fossil record, on microcellular level,  with actual physical changes in species. Using genetics, paleontoligy, biochemistry, geoligy, bioligy. So when you say it's faith, it seems to me you either now nothing about any of these sciences or are simply unwilling to accept it's conclusions.
> - Global warming, I had a discussion about that with you before I remember that you couldn't come with one credible objection to it. Even the sources you did give in some instances disagreed with you.
Click to expand...




It's not a 'research project,' you dope.....

It's a pay day.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did it come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no other understanding of the term "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> "from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question - all existence in combination ...
> 
> your response is oxymoronic.
> 
> 
> I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...




".....all existence in combination ..."
A meaningless words salad.



Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
Before it's 'existence'.

Where from?


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> Do you notice a pattern?
> 
> You write "Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"
> 
> 
> ....and I jam your words back down your throat.
> 
> 
> Aren't you embarrasses at your own ignorance?



How is that jamming my words down my throat exactly?

People who happen to be scientists and physicists speaking out against religion and irrational thought does not equate to a grand scheme against religion just because they feel like it. This is like, lizard people running the white house level of conspiracy.


----------



## james bond

Epitah said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave that explanation already. The devil talked through the serpent. Animals can't talk ha ha. You haven't answered the question of how the universe came from "invisible" particles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you seriously think that's a scientific explanation? I don't even know what invisible particles are or what they have to do with the Big Bang.
> 
> also you made like 3 claims you can't support in that one sentence and the word serpent is very vague, and that STILL isn't a scientific explanation.
> -The Devil
> -The Devil can posses animals and has done so
> -Possessing animals can make them talk despite them having no vocal chords to speak language on the level of human beings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theories become pseudoscience when something better replaces them. Older people probably were led to believe in an eternal universe. Yet, today that has changed more to what the Bible said centuries ago. That's significant and more evidence for God or a creator. BBT violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so The Creator Theory holds more significance. Science won't accept The God Theory or a supernatural explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theories become pseudoscience when something better replaces them. Older people probably were led to believe in an eternal universe. Yet, today that has changed more to what the Bible said centuries ago. That's significant and more evidence for God or a creator. BBT violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so The Creator Theory holds more significance. Science won't accept The God Theory or a supernatural explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because something in real life happens to line up with a book doesn't mean the book is real or has credibility. A creator isn't a theory, it's a faulty hypothesis at best.
Click to expand...


So, you're admitting you know very little about science but expect scientific explanations?  *Otherwise, please explain the Big Bang Theory and how the universe started in your own words.*

In regards to this question, you can't have it both ways.  Science does not accept the Bible nor any supernatural explanations.  Moreover, there was no science then.

It also shows to me and others here that you are a person of limited scope.  Science is not the only way to ascertain truth.  We have facts in which we can use to reason with and also there are historical truths.  We can use law to determine what happened and who is telling the truth.  Thus, I use facts, reasoning, historical truths and other methods including science to ascertain truths while you are limited to your narrow science.  Tsk.

The word serpent is clearly explained as a snake in the Bible.  I gave you the passage, so you can look it up yourself.  We know animals cannot talk even though a parrot or other birds can copy what was said.

As for the rest, this happened outside our realm which is timeless and spaceless.  God created angels before His other creations.  ""Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"  Job 38:4-7

He also created free will.  Angels are spiritual beings who have personalities that include emotions Luke 2:13-14, intelligence 2 Corinthians 11:3, 14, and wills 2 Timothy 2:26.  Satan was an angel who was cast out of heaven along with many other angels who decided to follow him and chose to sin 2 Peter 2:4.  In terms of free will, the Bible reveals this was an exercise of their ability to choose Jude 1:6.

During this time, He also created heaven which is explained in Genesis.

Because of free will, there were some powerful angels led by Satan who wanted an equal or separate share of heaven and to rule like God.  They were banished because they disobeyed God's will.

God created all the angels then and there will be no more.  Angels in the material world refer to messengers, prophets, priests and church leaders.  For example, if someone sends you a telegram and they were instructed to read it to you, you are not going to question how they know something about you or your situation.  The message is what's important.

Thus, Adam and Eve did not know animals weren't suppose to talk.  They just accepted it and the message being delivered.

>>Just because something in real life happens to line up with a book doesn't mean the book is real or has credibility. A creator isn't a theory, it's a faulty hypothesis at best.<<

Your last sentence is opinion while I've used the Bible, reasoning and historical evidence for my explanation.  Science isn't the only way to ascertain the truth for people who are broad in their scope.  Now, kindly answer my question above in your own words since you're so fond of science, and then we can move forward.


----------



## Epitah

james bond said:


> So, you're admitting you know very little about science but expect scientific explanations? *Otherwise, please explain the Big Bang Theory and how the universe started in your own words.*
> 
> In regards to this question, you can't have it both ways. Science does not accept the Bible nor any supernatural explanations. Moreover, there was no science then.
> 
> It also shows to me and others here that you are a person of limited scope. Science is not the onlyhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/if-god-doesnt-exist.433708/page-164#post-14651907 way to ascertain truth. We have factshttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/if-god-doesnt-exist.433708/page-164#post-14651907 in which we can use to reason with and also there are historical truths. We can use law to determine what happened and who is telling the truth. Thus, I use facts, reasoning, historical truths and other methods including science to ascertain truths while you are limited to your narrow science. Tsk.
> 
> The word serpent is clearly explained as a snake in the Bible. I gave you the passage, so you can look it up yourself. We know animals cannot talk even though a parrot or other birds can copy what was said.
> 
> As for the rest, this happened outside our realm which is timeless and spaceless. God created angels before His other creations. ""Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7
> 
> He also created free will. Angels are spiritual beings who have personalities that include emotions Luke 2:13-14, intelligence 2 Corinthians 11:3, 14, and wills 2 Timothy 2:26. Satan was an angel who was cast out of heaven along with many other angels who decided to follow him and chose to sin 2 Peter 2:4. In terms of free will, the Bible reveals this was an exercise of their ability to choose Jude 1:6.
> 
> During this time, He also created heaven which is explained in Genesis.
> 
> Because of free will, there were some powerful angels led by Satan who wanted an equal or separate share of heaven and to rule like God. They were banished because they disobeyed God's will.
> 
> God created all the angels then and there will be no more. Angels in the material world refer to messengers, prophets, priests and church leaders. For example, if someone sends you a telegram and they were instructed to read it to you, you are not going to question how they know something about you or your situation. The message is what's important.
> 
> Thus, Adam and Eve did not know animals weren't suppose to talk. They just accepted it and the message being delivered.



There are entire textbooks about the Big Bang, I have no idea why you don't research it yourself. I mean, if I do that's not going to change your mind, and if I don't that's not going to change anything aside from you advertising your lack of understand of the concept of "i dont know"

I still can't find a damn thing on these invisible particles you speak of, by the way.

Also, you make so many assertions in that post but don't back up anything, and they are all contingent on the existence of a creator. None of this is actual science. We know snakes can't talk. so why are you trying to scientifically justify a book that has a talking snake. or is it just a possessed snake, or someone has shapeshifted into a snake? Citing the bible is doing you no good


----------



## PoliticalChic

Epitah said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice a pattern?
> 
> You write "Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion? It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"
> 
> 
> ....and I jam your words back down your throat.
> 
> 
> Aren't you embarrasses at your own ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that jamming my words down my throat exactly?
> 
> People who happen to be scientists and physicists speaking out against religion and irrational thought does not equate to a grand scheme against religion just because they feel like it. This is like, lizard people running the white house level of conspiracy.
Click to expand...



You:
" It's beginning to sound like you actually think that. Do you know how stupid that sounds?"



Me, jamming your words back down your throat:
Certainly not behind closed doors....'else how can they bring fools like you into the fold.

"In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one an -other on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven
Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak uniﬁcation, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a ﬁgure of great stature. 
“Religion,” he affirmed, “is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”. In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientiﬁc justiﬁcations for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?"
David Berlinski



"Do you seriously just think scientists sit behind closed doors and scheme and snicker at how they can try to discredit religion?"

I just proved that that is exactly what is being done.


You didn't miss it the second time....

....did you?


----------



## Epitah

PoliticalChic said:


> I just proved that that is exactly what is being done.



How is that proof of what you're saying?

If divine intervention was useful to understanding reality scientists would most certainly be using it.

how come a common trend in these arguments is that you just seem constantly paranoid


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> 
> You imbecile...he just gave you the definition of the term.
> 
> There is no other understanding of the term "God."
> 
> 
> 
> And, If you are unsure of the meaning of "imbecile," it is listed in the dictionary under your picture.



More self-flagellating waffle from a loon. Who gets to decide on the definition? The one he posted is his own. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."  The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even my point. I find it laughable that on one hand religious freaks think evolution and the BBT are nuts, but think this invisible deity appeared out of nowhere from nothing (but will find all sorts of excuses to say otherwise "oh, he was always there", or "it's a metaphysical thing that is beyond your comprehension" BS) to try and justify their fluffy beliefs.
> 
> As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me. My lack of belief has nothing to do with any political philosophy. It's more about common sense. As for your link. Bullshit. Morality, good and evil etc are not a monopoly held by any religion. Devout Christians, Muslims and Buddhists have all killed indiscriminently in the name of their god...nobody is innocent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."
> 
> Au contraire
> 
> It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....
> 
> 
> The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...
> 
> Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.
> 
> The religion has a god, it is government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
> .*..is  government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism, *
> 
> *....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer,  and by which governing must be judged?*
> 
> 
> Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....
> 
> Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who      exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
> And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.
Click to expand...


Now, you're calling a political philosophy a religion? You couldn't make this shit up. What do you do for an encore? Look at grass and call it the moon?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> You imbecile...he just gave you the definition of the term.
> 
> There is no other understanding of the term "God."
> 
> 
> 
> And, If you are unsure of the meaning of "imbecile," it is listed in the dictionary under your picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More self-flagellating waffle from a loon. Who gets to decide on the definition? The one he posted is his own. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...



I’m proud of you! Not only are you a fool, but you have the energy to let everyone know it!

Here you are trumpeting that you are unaware of the meaning of terms you are attempting to argue about!

And.....here I am, English a second language to me.....yet I am far advanced in knowledge of the language over you!

Bravo....and don't ever change!


Now...to help you avoid future embarrassment....this is what is meant via the use of the word "God:"

When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.

Eternality Mercy
Goodness Omnipotence
Grace Omnipresence
Holiness Omniscience
Immanence Righteousness
Immutability Self-Existence
Justice Sovereignty
Love Transcendence
The Attributes of God - Study Resources




Psst......that first term:  Being without beginning or end


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
> 
> When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor."  The Schwarz Report | Essays
> 
> Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even my point. I find it laughable that on one hand religious freaks think evolution and the BBT are nuts, but think this invisible deity appeared out of nowhere from nothing (but will find all sorts of excuses to say otherwise "oh, he was always there", or "it's a metaphysical thing that is beyond your comprehension" BS) to try and justify their fluffy beliefs.
> 
> As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me. My lack of belief has nothing to do with any political philosophy. It's more about common sense. As for your link. Bullshit. Morality, good and evil etc are not a monopoly held by any religion. Devout Christians, Muslims and Buddhists have all killed indiscriminently in the name of their god...nobody is innocent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As for Marx and Lenin et al, that has nothing to do with me."
> 
> Au contraire
> 
> It seems that, as is the case with so very many other concepts, you fail to understand that Leftism is a religion, and the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years....
> 
> 
> The denominations of the religion of Leftism include the one to which you belong...
> 
> Liberalism, communism, socialism, Progressivism, Nazism or Fascism.
> 
> The religion has a god, it is government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be boiled down to this question....one that even a simpleton like you can understand:
> .*..is  government the very highest authority and power that there is....as is the concept of Leftism, *
> 
> *....or is there a higher power, or authority, to which government must answer, and defer,  and by which governing must be judged?*
> 
> 
> Are there unalienable rights, or only those that the great god government allows citizens to have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional religion takes the view that there is such a higher power....
> 
> Leftism follows the statement of Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” who      exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’
> And so it was.....with over 100 million men, women, and children slaughtered by the minions of Leftism.......your religion.....whether you are cognizant of the fact or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you're calling a political philosophy a religion? You couldn't make this shit up. What do you do for an encore? Look at grass and call it the moon?
Click to expand...



"Now, you're calling a political philosophy a religion?" 


From the Amazon review of _Godless_, by Coulter…

*Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion.* In _Godless_, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (_Roe v. Wade_), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> From the Amazon review of _Godless_, by Coulter…
> 
> .



You lost me after "by Coulter". A loon quoting another loon...Yeah that helps your argument...


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> And.....here I am, English a second language to me.....yet I am far advanced in knowledge of the language over you!
> 
> Bravo....and don't ever change!



I think English being your second language is the least of your problems my little Asian imbecile.


----------



## Kristian

He's name are Lord in Sweden. They even Lord beliefs in Sweden.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the Amazon review of _Godless_, by Coulter…
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me after "by Coulter". A loon quoting another loon...Yeah that helps your argument...
Click to expand...



Another fool who hates Coulter....but has never read any of her dozen best sellers.


Seems to be a pattern with the Liberals: strong opinions based on no knowledge.



Seems you've spent far too much time hissing at Emmanuel Goldstein.
You won't understand that allusion, either.


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> Another fool who hates Coulter....but has never read any of her dozen best sellers.
> Seems to be a pattern with the Liberals: strong opinions based on no knowledge.
> Seems you've spent far too much time hissing at Emmanuel Goldstein.
> You won't understand that allusion, either.



 I don't hate Coulter. I just think she's an idiot. I'm sure Mein Kampf sold a few copies too. Doesn't mean it's a good read. That fact you think Coulter is worth mentioning says a lot. None of it good.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dr Grump said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another fool who hates Coulter....but has never read any of her dozen best sellers.
> Seems to be a pattern with the Liberals: strong opinions based on no knowledge.
> Seems you've spent far too much time hissing at Emmanuel Goldstein.
> You won't understand that allusion, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Coulter. I just think she's an idiot. I'm sure Mein Kampf sold a few copies too. Doesn't mean it's a good read. That fact you think Coulter is worth mentioning says a lot. None of it good.
Click to expand...



"I don't hate Coulter. I just think she's an idiot."

Alert: you are not authorized to use the term 'think.'
Fact not in evidence.


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the BB is cyclical, the material remains relatively constant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did it come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no other understanding of the term "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> "from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question - all existence in combination ...
> 
> your response is oxymoronic.
> 
> 
> I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....all existence in combination ..."
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Where from?
Click to expand...

. 


PoliticalChic said:


> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.



When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.

I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.




PoliticalChic said:


> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.



_*Before it's 'existence'*_

since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....

.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did it come from?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no other understanding of the term "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> "from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question - all existence in combination ...
> 
> your response is oxymoronic.
> 
> 
> I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....all existence in combination ..."
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Where from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.
> 
> I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Before it's 'existence'*_
> 
> since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...




Perhaps you missed this....

...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did it come from?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no other understanding of the term "God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> "from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question - all existence in combination ...
> 
> your response is oxymoronic.
> 
> 
> I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....all existence in combination ..."
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Where from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.
> 
> I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Before it's 'existence'*_
> 
> since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...




"When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.

I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering."

Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> 
> 
> the Almighty is the ruler of the Everlasting the conquer of evil, no one enters without Judgement. I dare say there are others ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a component for a Spirits admission is accomplishing the Apex of Knowledge and the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken religion of the bible - Noah.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> "from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question - all existence in combination ...
> 
> your response is oxymoronic.
> 
> 
> I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....all existence in combination ..."
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Where from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.
> 
> I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Before it's 'existence'*_
> 
> since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this....
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
Click to expand...

.


PoliticalChic said:


> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?




the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -




PoliticalChic said:


> Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
> You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.




I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -

and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*PC: Where did it come from?*_
> 
> "from the previous cycle - all existence in combination"
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And....before it was in 'existence'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question - all existence in combination ...
> 
> your response is oxymoronic.
> 
> 
> I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....all existence in combination ..."
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Where from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.
> 
> I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Before it's 'existence'*_
> 
> since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this....
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
> You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



"the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"

You can run...but you can't hide.



Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?

How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?

That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.


Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I answered your question - all existence in combination ...
> 
> your response is oxymoronic.
> 
> 
> I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....all existence in combination ..."
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Where from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.
> 
> I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Before it's 'existence'*_
> 
> since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this....
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
> You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"
> 
> You can run...but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?
> 
> How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?
> 
> That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.
> 
> 
> Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.
Click to expand...

.


PoliticalChic said:


> that comprises what we call our universe






BreezeWood said:


> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination





BreezeWood said:


> but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....





BreezeWood said:


> and what does gender have to do with pantheism




the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...

you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ".....all existence in combination ..."
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Where from?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.
> 
> I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Before it's 'existence'*_
> 
> since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this....
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
> You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"
> 
> You can run...but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?
> 
> How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?
> 
> That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.
> 
> 
> Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> that comprises what we call our universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...
> 
> you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.



Excellent.


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.
> 
> I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.
> 
> 
> _*Before it's 'existence'*_
> 
> since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this....
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
> You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"
> 
> You can run...but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?
> 
> How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?
> 
> That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.
> 
> 
> Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> that comprises what we call our universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...
> 
> you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
Click to expand...

.


PoliticalChic said:


> So we can stipulate




So we can stipulate ...

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.

I have given you my answer:  from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....






BreezeWood said:


> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -





BreezeWood said:


> your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.




my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this....
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
> You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"
> 
> You can run...but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?
> 
> How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?
> 
> That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.
> 
> 
> Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> that comprises what we call our universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...
> 
> you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate ...
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.
> 
> I have given you my answer:  from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."

I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."




Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.

As you just attempted.

We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.



I have simply proven that you

a. know that the universe exists

b. it is made of matter and energy

c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.

d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.

e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.


And I love every minute of your discomfort.



Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.


----------



## james bond

Epitah said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're admitting you know very little about science but expect scientific explanations? *Otherwise, please explain the Big Bang Theory and how the universe started in your own words.*
> 
> In regards to this question, you can't have it both ways. Science does not accept the Bible nor any supernatural explanations. Moreover, there was no science then.
> 
> It also shows to me and others here that you are a person of limited scope. Science is not the onlyhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/if-god-doesnt-exist.433708/page-164#post-14651907 way to ascertain truth. We have factshttp://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/if-god-doesnt-exist.433708/page-164#post-14651907 in which we can use to reason with and also there are historical truths. We can use law to determine what happened and who is telling the truth. Thus, I use facts, reasoning, historical truths and other methods including science to ascertain truths while you are limited to your narrow science. Tsk.
> 
> The word serpent is clearly explained as a snake in the Bible. I gave you the passage, so you can look it up yourself. We know animals cannot talk even though a parrot or other birds can copy what was said.
> 
> As for the rest, this happened outside our realm which is timeless and spaceless. God created angels before His other creations. ""Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7
> 
> He also created free will. Angels are spiritual beings who have personalities that include emotions Luke 2:13-14, intelligence 2 Corinthians 11:3, 14, and wills 2 Timothy 2:26. Satan was an angel who was cast out of heaven along with many other angels who decided to follow him and chose to sin 2 Peter 2:4. In terms of free will, the Bible reveals this was an exercise of their ability to choose Jude 1:6.
> 
> During this time, He also created heaven which is explained in Genesis.
> 
> Because of free will, there were some powerful angels led by Satan who wanted an equal or separate share of heaven and to rule like God. They were banished because they disobeyed God's will.
> 
> God created all the angels then and there will be no more. Angels in the material world refer to messengers, prophets, priests and church leaders. For example, if someone sends you a telegram and they were instructed to read it to you, you are not going to question how they know something about you or your situation. The message is what's important.
> 
> Thus, Adam and Eve did not know animals weren't suppose to talk. They just accepted it and the message being delivered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are entire textbooks about the Big Bang, I have no idea why you don't research it yourself. I mean, if I do that's not going to change your mind, and if I don't that's not going to change anything aside from you advertising your lack of understand of the concept of "i dont know"
> 
> I still can't find a damn thing on these invisible particles you speak of, by the way.
> 
> Also, you make so many assertions in that post but don't back up anything, and they are all contingent on the existence of a creator. None of this is actual science. We know snakes can't talk. so why are you trying to scientifically justify a book that has a talking snake. or is it just a possessed snake, or someone has shapeshifted into a snake? Citing the bible is doing you no good
Click to expand...


So, you believe in something you can't explain lol.  It also backs up what you know about science which is precious little.  Let's just discard you to the troll wayside.


----------



## james bond

Who still thinks humans came from apes?  

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"
> 
> You can run...but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?
> 
> How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?
> 
> That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.
> 
> 
> Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> that comprises what we call our universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...
> 
> you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate ...
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.
> 
> I have given you my answer:  from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> As you just attempted.
> 
> We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> I have simply proven that you
> 
> a. know that the universe exists
> 
> b. it is made of matter and energy
> 
> c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.
> 
> d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.
> 
> e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.
> 
> 
> And I love every minute of your discomfort.
> 
> 
> 
> Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
Click to expand...

.


PoliticalChic said:


> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.


 ... [sic]


you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.

- or better, get a life.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"
> 
> You can run...but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?
> 
> How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?
> 
> That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.
> 
> 
> Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> that comprises what we call our universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> from the previous cycle - all existence in combination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...
> 
> you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate ...
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.
> 
> I have given you my answer:  from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> As you just attempted.
> 
> We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> I have simply proven that you
> 
> a. know that the universe exists
> 
> b. it is made of matter and energy
> 
> c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.
> 
> d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.
> 
> e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.
> 
> 
> And I love every minute of your discomfort.
> 
> 
> 
> Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... [sic]
> 
> 
> you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.
> 
> - or better, get a life.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?

Excellent.


----------



## sjay

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I answered your question - all existence in combination ...
> 
> your response is oxymoronic.
> 
> 
> I have one for you, do you refute the Everlasting ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....all existence in combination ..."
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Where from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.
> 
> I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Before it's 'existence'*_
> 
> since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this....
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
> You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"
> 
> You can run...but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?
> 
> How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?
> 
> That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.
> 
> 
> Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.
Click to expand...


It can't be proven there is  a god or gods so at best it's a 50/50 proposition.Also how come no modern day miracles, the old time miracles were nothing more than hocus pocus,water into wine,parting of the red sea,rising from the dead etc. yeah right.


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> the question you may need an answer for first is - where did you come from ...
> 
> you refuse to respond to the answers or questions in an intelligible way simply verifying your lack of comprehension ... nothing anyone can do about that.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate ...
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.
> 
> I have given you my answer:  from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> As you just attempted.
> 
> We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> I have simply proven that you
> 
> a. know that the universe exists
> 
> b. it is made of matter and energy
> 
> c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.
> 
> d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.
> 
> e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.
> 
> 
> And I love every minute of your discomfort.
> 
> 
> 
> Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... [sic]
> 
> 
> you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.
> 
> - or better, get a life.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?
> 
> Excellent.
Click to expand...

.


PoliticalChic said:


> Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?




no, it's about your inability to respond to an answer ... from the previous cycle - all existence in combination.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

sjay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ".....all existence in combination ..."
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Where from?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who He truly is. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of His attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we speak of God's attributes, we are talking about those characteristics that helps us to understand who They truly are. That which follows is a thorough, yet incomplete list and summary of Their attributes.
> 
> I fixed that for you - are your language skills the same reason for your idolatry, just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A meaningless words salad.
> 
> Where did the material that has become the universe.....come from....
> Before it's 'existence'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Before it's 'existence'*_
> 
> since you did not respond to my previous post accordingly the simplest next step would be to consider it ignorance but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed this....
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...where did the material that makes up our universe come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am not a pantheist....so, clearly, you fixed nothing.
> You simply tried to add confusion, which seems to be the hallmark of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> and what does gender have to do with pantheism .... your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "the composite universe, maybe that will help this time otherwise, you are simply brain dead. -"
> 
> You can run...but you can't hide.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo.......where did the material, that comprises what we call our universe, come from?
> 
> How about you simply admit that you have no idea, but fear the possibility that has been suggested, and destroys your worldview?
> 
> That would be far more courageous than the smoke and mirrors you've been trying to advance.
> 
> 
> Or...you may pin the tail on yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can't be proven there is  a god or gods so at best it's a 50/50 proposition.Also how come no modern day miracles, the old time miracles were nothing more than hocus pocus,water into wine,parting of the red sea,rising from the dead etc. yeah right.
Click to expand...

.


sjay said:


> Also how come no modern day miracles




the injustice of the crucifiction has not been atoned for, those in charge then are yet in charge today.

.


----------



## Lutroo

edthecynic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
Click to expand...

Gravity, as well as time and space are part of the fabric of the universe. Gravity did not exist before the universe was formed. At least according Einstein.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate that the source, the origin, the provenance of the matter that makes up our universe is of such a nature that even speculating on same causes you palpable fear.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So we can stipulate ...
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.
> 
> I have given you my answer:  from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pantheist, mortal beings haven't a free pass to the Everlasting -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your choice of Him in regards to the Almighty is lacking and disrespectful .... but then you are a republican which does explains many of your missing gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> As you just attempted.
> 
> We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> I have simply proven that you
> 
> a. know that the universe exists
> 
> b. it is made of matter and energy
> 
> c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.
> 
> d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.
> 
> e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.
> 
> 
> And I love every minute of your discomfort.
> 
> 
> 
> Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... [sic]
> 
> 
> you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.
> 
> - or better, get a life.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, it's about your inability to respond to an answer ... from the previous cycle - all existence in combination.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




Existence
a :  the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence 
Definition of EXISTENCE


From????


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.


Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.


----------



## Lutroo

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
Click to expand...

Those small changes are simply the expression of genetic traits that already exist. The big changes have never been observed to happen. Ever hear about what happens when you push selective breeding too far? The critter loses it's genetic diversity, and is sickly or malformed. You can only push it so far, then you run into problems. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and current scientific thinking shows that it is probably impossible. There is no way that DNA can add new information, which is required for the creation of new species.


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> So we can stipulate ...
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form.
> 
> I have given you my answer:  from the previous cycle - all existence in combination as the origin of matter in the visible universe, a constructive comment from you is your choice ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my response to you unlike yours to me has not been lacking.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> As you just attempted.
> 
> We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> I have simply proven that you
> 
> a. know that the universe exists
> 
> b. it is made of matter and energy
> 
> c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.
> 
> d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.
> 
> e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.
> 
> 
> And I love every minute of your discomfort.
> 
> 
> 
> Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... [sic]
> 
> 
> you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.
> 
> - or better, get a life.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, it's about your inability to respond to an answer ... from the previous cycle - all existence in combination.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Existence
> a :  the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
> Definition of EXISTENCE
> 
> 
> From????
Click to expand...

.


PoliticalChic said:


> Existence
> a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence



a : the state or fact of having being - especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence


PC, only you would have chosen 2a as your definition for existence ...

_*
especially independently of human consciousness*_

just how would Webster know that ?



*and as contrasted with nonexistence*




BreezeWood said:


> but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....



what I have said all along is the lack of material is not a state of non existence, which does not exist unless it is the universe that does not exist when the Singularity at that moment resides in the Cosmos. 

.


----------



## PoliticalChic

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> I presume the we includes yourself and the other biblicists who insist the universe was "created" 6K years ago and the next day all living beings in adult form."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> As you just attempted.
> 
> We both know you won't even try to find any such pronouncements on my part, as they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> I have simply proven that you
> 
> a. know that the universe exists
> 
> b. it is made of matter and energy
> 
> c. the matter and energy must have come into existence at some point.
> 
> d. are afraid to provide any suggestion known to account for same.
> 
> e. and now you've become even more dishonest and petulant due to my having shown the above to be true.
> 
> 
> And I love every minute of your discomfort.
> 
> 
> 
> Now....calm down, and remember.... I'm just like you.....just smarter and better looking.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course when your and intransigence is revealed, you may attempt to change he subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... [sic]
> 
> 
> you simply are void of any dialog concerning the subject matter ... grow up PC.
> 
> - or better, get a life.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an admission that you fear conjecturing on the origin of the matter and energy that make up the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, it's about your inability to respond to an answer ... from the previous cycle - all existence in combination.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Existence
> a :  the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
> Definition of EXISTENCE
> 
> 
> From????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Existence
> a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a : the state or fact of having being - especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
> 
> 
> PC, only you would have chosen 2a as your definition for existence ...
> 
> _*
> especially independently of human consciousness*_
> 
> just how would Webster know that ?
> 
> 
> 
> *and as contrasted with nonexistence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> but in the sake of curiosity I might ask what was the material at the moment of Singularity and the universe ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what I have said all along is the lack of material is not a state of non existence, which does not exist unless it is the universe that does not exist when the Singularity at that moment resides in the Cosmos.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




Gee.....I thought you came back to explain the source of the matter and energy that makes up our universe.


"....the lack of material is not a state of non existence,....."
_As believable as the rumor that the Tooth Fairy was caught with a bag of teeth._


----------



## forkup

Lutroo said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those small changes are simply the expression of genetic traits that already exist. The big changes have never been observed to happen. Ever hear about what happens when you push selective breeding too far? The critter loses it's genetic diversity, and is sickly or malformed. You can only push it so far, then you run into problems. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and current scientific thinking shows that it is probably impossible. There is no way that DNA can add new information, which is required for the creation of new species.
Click to expand...

Lol really. When you say never been observed you fail to consider the entire fossil record, when you say never been observed you forget that you can litterally trace the genetic commanalities between species effectivly visualise when species diverged. When you say never been oberved you fail to consider that these things can be used to predict where you will find transitional fossils. So when you say never been observed you  actually say I don't want to observe it. And when you say experts, you are actually saying people who do not publish anything. And this whole selective breeding is another joke. First of, when you claim there was only 1 male and female to start with, that argument puts forth a big problem for you, the same can be said for the flood story. And I'll ask the same to you that I asked of  James. How do you propose that macro, micro evolution works? Is there 2 sets of DNA, 1 that changes 1 that doesn't. Or does DNA stop changing after a certain amount of cycles? That's the only way you can have micro changes, but not macro changes. Macro changes are just a whole lot of micro changes.


----------



## Lutroo

forkup said:


> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those small changes are simply the expression of genetic traits that already exist. The big changes have never been observed to happen. Ever hear about what happens when you push selective breeding too far? The critter loses it's genetic diversity, and is sickly or malformed. You can only push it so far, then you run into problems. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and current scientific thinking shows that it is probably impossible. There is no way that DNA can add new information, which is required for the creation of new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol really. When you say never been observed you fail to consider the entire fossil record, when you say never been observed you forget that you can litterally trace the genetic commanalities between species effectivly visualise when species diverged. When you say never been oberved you fail to consider that these things can be used to predict where you will find transitional fossils. So when you say never been observed you  actually say I don't want to observe it. And when you say experts, you are actually saying people who do not publish anything. And this whole selective breeding is another joke. First of, when you claim there was only 1 male and female to start with, that argument puts forth a big problem for you, the same can be said for the flood story. And I'll ask the same to you that I asked of  James. How do you propose that macro, micro evolution works? Is there 2 sets of DNA, 1 that changes 1 that doesn't. Or does DNA stop changing after a certain amount of cycles? That's the only way you can have micro changes, but not macro changes. Macro changes are just a whole lot of micro changes.
Click to expand...

I could explain it, but you would require a rudimentary knowledge of biology and genetics.to understand. Here is what a world famous chemist has to say about evolution. And yes. He's been published. Many times.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.


.
_*It does not mean common descent.*_

(within the species), your opinion ... however

considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].

.


----------



## Lutroo

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*It does not mean common descent.*_
> 
> (within the species), your opinion ... however
> 
> considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That is what is commonly referred to as a logical fallacy. It could also mean that everything had a common Creator. There is no evidence either way. Evolutionists simply accept their version on faith.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Epitah said:


> for what insane reason would scientists have to lie about the big bang
> 
> seems like you just wanted to take an arbitrary shot at global warming for whatever reason



I didn't say that scientists are lying about the Big Bang... I'm merely suggesting that it was a miracle that caused it and right conditions in the universal constants for the universe to exist at all.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> so if the universe itself is god what is the point of calling it god? seems like an pointless label



You say potato and I say potaatoo... Without God I wouldn't exist.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I touch (feel), hear, see, smell, or taste, something my 'feelings' aren't verifiable now?
> 
> Then how do you know anything exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts aren't testable...
Click to expand...


Teachers test them every day.



Epitah said:


> ...Sensations are, however.



...And my senses tell me every day that God exists.

*****CHUCKLE*****



Epitah said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure? You admit that classical physics did not apply during that time... Prove to us all that quantum physics applied any better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have the biggest understanding of that yet but quantum physics deal with particles on a subatomic level.
Click to expand...


I see... So you think atoms and subatomic particles would still exist if the universe was say the size of a pinhead, baseball, or even a basketball... Interesting.



Epitah said:


> I'm not going to sift through several pages just to find one definition it would take you absolutely no effort to do I'm just going to run under the assumption that you interpret a really big coincidence as a miracle.





That is your choice and now my choice is obvious.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*It does not mean common descent.*_
> 
> (within the species), your opinion ... however
> 
> considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.  This is true.  A small difference can produce something altogether different.  What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution.  It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere.  However, we find there isn't.  We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.

Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer?  The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
  Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation.  There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point.  A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.


----------



## emilynghiem

Epitah said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have been saying all along, atheists are usually wrong.  Here is another case.  What you claim just goes to show you know very little about truth and the Bible.  It's the most read and most famous book in the world selling over 5 BILLION copies.  One of the reasons is science backs it up.  Other reasons are for moral strength and guidance in times of need.  It can help turnaround one's life.  The atheist books cannot hold a candle to it.  Probably Richard Dawkins writes his books so he can continue paying his ex-wife.  Science has verified many things in the Bible.  For one, atheist scientists believed in an eternal universe with no beginning and end.  It was the Steady State Theory.  Now, the Big Bang Theory has replaced it and SST became pseudoscience.  The BBT backs up Genesis and the creation of the universe and world in six days.  It's missing the part of God the Creator because science will not accept the supernatural and the God Theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This reads like a parody of what a Christian would say. You've got all the tropes, pseudoscience, overblowing the wisdom of the Bible, shitting on Richard Dawkins. It's so adorable, it's he's trying to be a real science man.
> 
> Christians fucking hate science, it contradicts what they've been taught in the Bible as fact and it looks like you're just trying to rationalize it to fit the Bible as hard as humanly possibly can because you know real science is far a better system. I guarantee you that that a vast majority of Bible sales are not because of scientific accuracy, even a 4th grade science textbook is a better source of scientific information. I don't suppose you'd know why we've dated the Earth to be several billion years old if it was true to the Bible? I'd love to know how you hard you can rationalize other stories in the Bible too.
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear your reading abilities and comprehension are on par with your knowledge of science and the scientific method...
> 
> When have I ever stated that I was a Christian? I haven't and I'm not.
> 
> Now knowing what my beliefs about God are should tell you that at no time have I been dishonest in how I've treated the information you and others have asked or provided.
> 
> I'd wish you better luck next time but I suspect that as with most progressive liberal atheists that you'll continue to make assumptions as you continue your bigotry and discrimination against people not of your mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assuming you were a Christian was a mistake, but with how hard you defend this you certainly do blend in with them just nicely. You still haven't gotten around to explaining exactly I'm ignorant of the scientific method, or do you just want to post more music videos?
> 
> Dem dayum liburul ateists, insulting em substitutes for a real argument, we wear. I don't even thinking you still understand the purpose or meaning of Russel's Teapot.
Click to expand...

Dear Epitah 
Faith and science go hand in hand.
Science is a system of describing laws of nature that according to Christian faith comes from the same God or Source of all life.
So ideally there is NO Conflict between science and religion and unless ppl cling to man-made divisions 

As Scott Peck denounced in his writing, the division between faith and science is FALSE. It's the division that is causing problems, not the religion itself that doesn't have to be taught as hostile to science or science as hostile to religion.

As Francis MacNutt writes in his books reconciling spiritual healing with science -- it is a natural process that works with medicine and science not against or rejecting them. 

I think you are talking about extreme fundamentalists who fear and reject science in mutual reaction to their counterparts the extreme nontheists who fear and reject religion.

In truth both the laws of science and nature, the laws of civil govt. And secular society , and the laws taught in religion philosophy ethics and humanities are all systems of expressing relationships. So the universal laws governing humanity and the world are the same, regardless which systems we use to represent these.

These don't need to be in conflict; in fact we do better to find where these agree or complement/check each other in harmony. 

Remove the hostility fear and habit of competing to dominate and bully other groups. And what we have left are just the raw systems that we can use to communicate to different audiences using the laws they relate to. The diversity of systems allows us to address and organize different groups, and is not about making one right and favored over another. The point is to check and balance each other by having several independent sources to compare against to find what is common or universal, and what isnt. Again this helps with organizing like minded groups and delegating which systems are best used for which areas.

No reason to pit science and reason against faith and religion, when these different systems serve different purposes and communicate to different ppl.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*It does not mean common descent.*_
> 
> (within the species), your opinion ... however
> 
> considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.  This is true.  A small difference can produce something altogether different.  What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution.  It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere.  However, we find there isn't.  We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.
> 
> Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer?  The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
> Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation.  There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point.  A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.
Click to expand...

.


Lutroo said:


> It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.





james bond said:


> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.





james bond said:


> It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.




_*then there would be evidence of it everywhere*_







this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...


I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.

the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.






james bond said:


> A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.



that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...

.


----------



## forkup

Lutroo said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those small changes are simply the expression of genetic traits that already exist. The big changes have never been observed to happen. Ever hear about what happens when you push selective breeding too far? The critter loses it's genetic diversity, and is sickly or malformed. You can only push it so far, then you run into problems. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and current scientific thinking shows that it is probably impossible. There is no way that DNA can add new information, which is required for the creation of new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol really. When you say never been observed you fail to consider the entire fossil record, when you say never been observed you forget that you can litterally trace the genetic commanalities between species effectivly visualise when species diverged. When you say never been oberved you fail to consider that these things can be used to predict where you will find transitional fossils. So when you say never been observed you  actually say I don't want to observe it. And when you say experts, you are actually saying people who do not publish anything. And this whole selective breeding is another joke. First of, when you claim there was only 1 male and female to start with, that argument puts forth a big problem for you, the same can be said for the flood story. And I'll ask the same to you that I asked of  James. How do you propose that macro, micro evolution works? Is there 2 sets of DNA, 1 that changes 1 that doesn't. Or does DNA stop changing after a certain amount of cycles? That's the only way you can have micro changes, but not macro changes. Macro changes are just a whole lot of micro changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could explain it, but you would require a rudimentary knowledge of biology and genetics.to understand. Here is what a world famous chemist has to say about evolution. And yes. He's been published. Many times.
> 
> A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent
Click to expand...

Yes this guy has been published. Funny thing is the article your link is pointing to seems to say a few things more then the couple of quotes. I'll Illustrate
Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.
That's directly from the article your post sites. So your source doesn't seem to agree with your article. As I read this article the most intresting paragraph to me is this
*Now that Professor Tour has informed the world that even Nobel Prize-winning scientists privately admit that they don’t understand macroevolution, a layperson is surely entitled to ask: “Well, if even they don’t understand it, then why should we believe it? How can we possibly be obliged to believe in a theory which nobody understands?”

That’s a good question. And it’s no use for Darwinists to trot out the standard “party line” that “even if we don’t yet understand how it happened, we still have enough evidence to infer that it happened.” At the very most, all that the current scientific evidence could establish is the common descent of living organisms. But that’s not macroevolution. Macroevolution requires more than a common ancestry for living organisms: it requires a natural mechanism which can generate the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today from a common stock, without the need for any direction by an Intelligent Agent. But the mechanism is precisely what we don’t have evidence for. So the question remains: why should we believe in macroevolution?*
The person who wrote the article seems to both admit that there is plenty of evidence outside the chemical and at the same time denies that that would make a difference. If you find a transitional fossil doesn't that prove that regardless of the fact that we understand it completely on a chemical level, that macroevolution has occurred? That's one of the reasons you should believe in macroevolution
James M Tour Group   » Evolution/Creation
This shows a transitional fossil and more importantly how they found it. Showing in a very graphic way the existence of macroevoution


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
Click to expand...

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.


----------



## Lutroo

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
Click to expand...

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Rather god exist or not, I don't believe he told us the full story and expects us to take care of ourselves.


----------



## forkup

Lutroo said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
Click to expand...

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me


----------



## Lutroo

forkup said:


> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
Click to expand...

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.


----------



## forkup

Lutroo said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
Click to expand...

Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.


----------



## forkup

Lutroo said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
Click to expand...

If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise


----------



## Lutroo

forkup said:


> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> 
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.
Click to expand...

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’

In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.


----------



## Kristian

My God is secretive and said nothing in his sight for us humans.


----------



## forkup

Lutroo said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
> 
> 
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’
> 
> In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.
Click to expand...

I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. *My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution?* It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.


----------



## Lutroo

forkup said:


> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’
> 
> In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. *My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution?* It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.
Click to expand...

There is not one undisputed transitional fossil. If evolution really happened, there would be countless transitional fossils. There is not. What the fossil record shows is complete, distinct species. And similarity of DNA is not evidence for evolution. It is evidence that many species share the same DNA. The problem is that evolutionists refuse to consider any other alternative. There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own. This is a fact. Scientists haven't even got a clue how it could have happened. When you look at the number of componets that even the simplest life requires to function, it is obvious that all of those components need to be in place at the same time. These components could not have evolved separately. Bottom line. There is no evidence for abiogenesis or evolution. It's a fairy tale for grownups. But you are free to believe what you want, and I'll see you on Judgement Day.


----------



## forkup

Lutroo said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’
> 
> In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. *My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution?* It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is not one undisputed transitional fossil. If evolution really happened, there would be countless transitional fossils. There is not. What the fossil record shows is complete, distinct species. And similarity of DNA is not evidence for evolution. It is evidence that many species share the same DNA. The problem is that evolutionists refuse to consider any other alternative. There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own. This is a fact. Scientists haven't even got a clue how it could have happened. When you look at the number of componets that even the simplest life requires to function, it is obvious that all of those components need to be in place at the same time. These components could not have evolved separately. Bottom line. There is no evidence for abiogenesis or evolution. It's a fairy tale for grownups. But you are free to believe what you want, and I'll see you on Judgement Day.
Click to expand...

I notice that you didn't answer my question. So a fish with a neck, wristbones in it's fins and eyes on the top of it's head isn't a transitonal fossil? Dispute it if you can. We have found a few transitional fossils. Archeopteryx, _Australopithecus afarensis,ambulocetids,tiktaalik,amphistium,runcaaria. _The fact that there aren't more is easily explained by the nature of the fossilasation process. Since each fossil represents a snapshot in the evolutionary process and, fossilasation in itself is a very rare occurence to begin with. And someone finding said fossils is rarer still. The current estimate of creatures wich are know trough the fossil record is estimated at less then 1 percent of all things that ever lived The fact that we have found any, let alone half a dozen is proof of the fact that transitional fossils where relativly abundant


----------



## Lutroo

forkup said:


> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’
> 
> In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. *My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution?* It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is not one undisputed transitional fossil. If evolution really happened, there would be countless transitional fossils. There is not. What the fossil record shows is complete, distinct species. And similarity of DNA is not evidence for evolution. It is evidence that many species share the same DNA. The problem is that evolutionists refuse to consider any other alternative. There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own. This is a fact. Scientists haven't even got a clue how it could have happened. When you look at the number of componets that even the simplest life requires to function, it is obvious that all of those components need to be in place at the same time. These components could not have evolved separately. Bottom line. There is no evidence for abiogenesis or evolution. It's a fairy tale for grownups. But you are free to believe what you want, and I'll see you on Judgement Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you didn't answer my question. So a fish with a neck, wristbones in it's fins and eyes on the top of it's head isn't a transitonal fossil? Dispute it if you can. We have found a few transitional fossils. Archeopteryx, _Australopithecus afarensis,ambulocetids,tiktaalik,amphistium,runcaaria. _The fact that there aren't more is easily explained by the nature of the fossilasation process. Since each fossil represents a snapshot in the evolutionary process and, fossilasation in itself is a very rare occurence to begin with. And someone finding said fossils is rarer still. The current estimate of creatures wich are know trough the fossil record is estimated at less then 1 percent of all things that ever lived The fact that we have found any, let alone half a dozen is proof of the fact that transitional fossils where relativly abundant
Click to expand...

Like I said,  none of those fossils are undisputed.  You have proven nothing. And there are millions of fossils that have been found,  and you're crowing about a handful of them maybe being transitional? Pathetic.


----------



## forkup

Lutroo said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.
> 
> 
> 
> The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’
> 
> In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. *My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution?* It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is not one undisputed transitional fossil. If evolution really happened, there would be countless transitional fossils. There is not. What the fossil record shows is complete, distinct species. And similarity of DNA is not evidence for evolution. It is evidence that many species share the same DNA. The problem is that evolutionists refuse to consider any other alternative. There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own. This is a fact. Scientists haven't even got a clue how it could have happened. When you look at the number of componets that even the simplest life requires to function, it is obvious that all of those components need to be in place at the same time. These components could not have evolved separately. Bottom line. There is no evidence for abiogenesis or evolution. It's a fairy tale for grownups. But you are free to believe what you want, and I'll see you on Judgement Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that you didn't answer my question. So a fish with a neck, wristbones in it's fins and eyes on the top of it's flat head isn't a transitonal fossil? Dispute it if you can. We have found a few transitional fossils. Archeopteryx, _Australopithecus afarensis,ambulocetids,tiktaalik,amphistium,runcaaria. _The fact that there aren't more is easily explained by the nature of the fossilasation process. Since each fossil represents a snapshot in the evolutionary process and, fossilasation in itself is a very rare occurence to begin with. And someone finding said fossils is rarer still. The current estimate of creatures wich are know trough the fossil record is estimated at less then 1 percent of all things that ever lived The fact that we have found any, let alone half a dozen is proof of the fact that transitional fossils where relativly abundant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said,  none of those fossils are undisputed.  You have proven nothing. And there are millions of fossils that have been found,  and you're crowing about a handful of them maybe being transitional? Pathetic.
Click to expand...

*Again dodging, dispute tiktaalik and what would convince you?* Btw humans are a transitional species. We have for instance a tailbone. As the name suggest it's the remnant of a tail. What is the religious explanation for that? *If God created us in his image, why would we have bones in our body that don't serve their original function?* Isn't God supposed to be a finished product?Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia More examples both in humans and all animals each of wich is a vivid reminder that yes,  all animals are still evolving and are in effect transitionary it's easy to see if you care to. look. Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia this documents the changes humans have gone trough and also explains that we are not yet perfectly adapted to our means of locomotion, again making it very clear, that humans are not the end product of anything, just a step in evolution. Oh and btw if you call someone pathetic but aren't willing to answer the few questions I put up, you are admitting that your own arguments are weak. Deflecting like you do is not a sign of strenght. And yes we have found millions of fossils but you want very specific fossils, namely you want species that are perfectly in the middle of 2 major classes of animals. And that is not even remotely easy. And the really sick thing is, even if I do show you such a creature, you simply say. "It's disputed" without so much as a single letter of eleboration on the why of that statement. I know you feel above the burden of proof, since you are a religious person, but that is ridiculous.


----------



## BreezeWood

Lutroo said:


> There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own.




that does not negate what life was when it began by whatever means nor that evolution would in someway not be an enhancement of creation - what you are saying is man was created an adult at that time -

where is your evidence?

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who still thinks humans came from apes?
> 
> It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists.  They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*It does not mean common descent.*_
> 
> (within the species), your opinion ... however
> 
> considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.  This is true.  A small difference can produce something altogether different.  What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution.  It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere.  However, we find there isn't.  We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.
> 
> Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer?  The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
> Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation.  There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point.  A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*then there would be evidence of it everywhere*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...
> 
> 
> I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.
> 
> the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  Just what are we looking at?

This is true.  Flew became a deist.  He was raised a Christian, but probably rebelled against it.  He realized being an atheist was wrong which is what I have been saying all along.  I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> 
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise
Click to expand...


I'm not here to change your mind.  Only you can do that.  I doubt any evidence will convince you different.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.

BTW the tiktaalik was a fish.  The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea.  The fossil evidence is sketchy.  It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins.  The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier.  Is this compelling evidence?
http://creationwiki.org/Archaeopteryx
The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
> 
> 
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not here to change your mind.  Only you can do that.  I doubt any evidence will convince you different.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.
> 
> BTW the tiktaalik was a fish.  The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea.  The fossil evidence is sketchy.  It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins.  The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier.  Is this compelling evidence?
> The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.
Click to expand...

Nobody ever claimed it wasn't a fish. But it's a fish with a neck it has fins but those fins contain rudementary wristbones, it has a flat head with the eyes on top instead to the sides like a normal fish, in short it shows clear traits of both fishes and tetrapods, that's why it is transitionary the exact thing you and lutroo insist aren't observed in nature. Archeopteryx is another one of those. What I find so funny is that you and lutroo admit that these creatures existed but refute that they are transitionary. You have serious trouble understanding why I don't believe you but I keep on bringing lines of questioning a lot of wich you have no clear answers for. My evidence has predictive capabilities as the tiktaalik find proved. (They didn't find that fossil by chance, it was found because they pinpointed where such a creature should be found)


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without  siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.
> 
> 
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not here to change your mind.  Only you can do that.  I doubt any evidence will convince you different.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.
> 
> BTW the tiktaalik was a fish.  The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea.  The fossil evidence is sketchy.  It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins.  The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier.  Is this compelling evidence?
> The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.
Click to expand...

lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not here to change your mind.  Only you can do that.  I doubt any evidence will convince you different.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.
> 
> BTW the tiktaalik was a fish.  The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea.  The fossil evidence is sketchy.  It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins.  The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier.  Is this compelling evidence?
> The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  Jeez Louise.  I think you made my point.  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?  I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos.  That's what they *claim* this *fish *had.  Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that?  They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil.  Then they claimed it was billions of years old.  What kind of fish story is that?  It tops the coelacanth fish story.

In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh.  Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website.  It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.

Occam's Razor says it's just a fish.  And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster.  Thank you, forkup, you made my day.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*It does not mean common descent.*_
> 
> (within the species), your opinion ... however
> 
> considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.  This is true.  A small difference can produce something altogether different.  What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution.  It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere.  However, we find there isn't.  We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.
> 
> Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer?  The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
> Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation.  There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point.  A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*then there would be evidence of it everywhere*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...
> 
> 
> I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.
> 
> the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Just what are we looking at?
> 
> This is true.  Flew became a deist.  He was raised a Christian, but probably rebelled against it.  He realized being an atheist was wrong which is what I have been saying all along.  I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?










two distinct creatures in real time that evolve one to the other without an interval and if you had read the post the explanation for how it occurred.




james bond said:


> I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.



up to this point I was spellbound then entered reality.

.


----------



## Lutroo

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Lucy didn't have any knees.  Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground.  That's embarrassing.
> 
> Let me ask you something.  Look at the primate bipedal creatures.  Do they have similar skeletal structures?  Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same.  What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.  See, I can read your mind.  That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts.  What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world.  Apes are not really bipedal creatures.  They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?
> 
> The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?
> 
> It does not mean common descent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*It does not mean common descent.*_
> 
> (within the species), your opinion ... however
> 
> considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.  This is true.  A small difference can produce something altogether different.  What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution.  It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere.  However, we find there isn't.  We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.
> 
> Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer?  The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
> Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation.  There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point.  A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*then there would be evidence of it everywhere*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...
> 
> 
> I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.
> 
> the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Just what are we looking at?
> 
> This is true.  Flew became a deist.  He was raised a Christian, but probably rebelled against it.  He realized being an atheist was wrong which is what I have been saying all along.  I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> two distinct creatures in real time that evolve one to the other without an interval and if you had read the post the explanation for how it occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> up to this point I was spellbound then entered reality.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is not two creatures. It's one. That's like saying that maggots and flies are two different creatures. Same with a caterpillar and a butterfly. I think you are confused.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut  it for me
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not here to change your mind.  Only you can do that.  I doubt any evidence will convince you different.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.
> 
> BTW the tiktaalik was a fish.  The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea.  The fossil evidence is sketchy.  It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins.  The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier.  Is this compelling evidence?
> The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Jeez Louise.  I think you made my point.  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?  I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos.  That's what they *claim* this *fish *had.  Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that?  They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil.  Then they claimed it was billions of years old.  What kind of fish story is that?  It tops the coelacanth fish story.
> 
> In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh.  Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website.  It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.
> 
> Occam's Razor says it's just a fish.  And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster.  Thank you, forkup, you made my day.
Click to expand...

*A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.*
That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't *claim* that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.


----------



## BreezeWood

Lutroo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> _*It does not mean common descent.*_
> 
> (within the species), your opinion ... however
> 
> considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.  This is true.  A small difference can produce something altogether different.  What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution.  It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere.  However, we find there isn't.  We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.
> 
> Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer?  The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
> Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation.  There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point.  A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*then there would be evidence of it everywhere*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...
> 
> 
> I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.
> 
> the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Just what are we looking at?
> 
> This is true.  Flew became a deist.  He was raised a Christian, but probably rebelled against it.  He realized being an atheist was wrong which is what I have been saying all along.  I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> two distinct creatures in real time that evolve one to the other without an interval and if you had read the post the explanation for how it occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> up to this point I was spellbound then entered reality.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but that is not two creatures. It's one. That's like saying that maggots and flies are two different creatures. Same with a caterpillar and a butterfly. I think you are confused.
Click to expand...

.


Lutroo said:


> Sorry, but that is not two creatures. It's one. That's like saying that maggots and flies are two different creatures. Same with a caterpillar and a butterfly. I think you are confused.



I did not say they were two different creatures, they are the same creature one (changing) to another and demonstrates natures ability to change without intermittent steps (transitional fossil) - the same as one creatures stored program for change can occur in a single step from one species to create a new one - from Ape to Homo Sapien.

the example is an indisputable real time event.




> _Homo sapiens | Becoming Human_
> *
> Homo sapiens*
> 
> The latest chapter of human evolution begins with the emergence of _Homo sapiens_. The anatomy of _Homo sapiens_ is unique among hominin species and appears first in East Africa, dating to roughly 160 thousand years ago (ka).  These unique features—including changes in the skull and postcranial skeleton (skeleton minus skull)—suggest changes in brain size and architecture and an adaptation to tropical environments.  These anatomical changes are linked to cognitive and behavioral changes that are equally unique among hominin species.  In particular, the archaeological evidence of behaviors thought to be unique to Homo sapiens, which appear first in Africa around 170 ka, highlight the importance of symbolism, complex cognitive behaviors, and a broad subsistence strategy (the strategy used to procure food).



_*
The anatomy of Homo sapiens is unique among hominin species and appears first in East Africa, dating to roughly 160 thousand years ago.*_


160 thousand years ago a single predecessor with the functioning Spiritual software evolved through its offspring a (new) Homo Sapien species from a single birth.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> I did not say they were two different creatures, they are the same creature one (changing) to another and demonstrates natures ability to change without intermittent steps (transitional fossil) - the same as one creatures stored program for change can occur in a single step from one species to create a new one - from Ape to Homo Sapien.



So, the ape shell split open and man popped out.  Ha ha.  You're hilarious.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lutroo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not here to change your mind.  Only you can do that.  I doubt any evidence will convince you different.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.
> 
> BTW the tiktaalik was a fish.  The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea.  The fossil evidence is sketchy.  It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins.  The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier.  Is this compelling evidence?
> The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Jeez Louise.  I think you made my point.  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?  I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos.  That's what they *claim* this *fish *had.  Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that?  They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil.  Then they claimed it was billions of years old.  What kind of fish story is that?  It tops the coelacanth fish story.
> 
> In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh.  Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website.  It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.
> 
> Occam's Razor says it's just a fish.  And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster.  Thank you, forkup, you made my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.*
> That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't *claim* that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.
Click to expand...


Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning.  A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant.  Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution.  All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE.  They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.






And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik.  It's right there at the website I use

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.

Tiktaalik





Killer Whate





(I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions.  Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)

Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not here to change your mind.  Only you can do that.  I doubt any evidence will convince you different.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.
> 
> BTW the tiktaalik was a fish.  The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea.  The fossil evidence is sketchy.  It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins.  The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier.  Is this compelling evidence?
> The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Jeez Louise.  I think you made my point.  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?  I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos.  That's what they *claim* this *fish *had.  Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that?  They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil.  Then they claimed it was billions of years old.  What kind of fish story is that?  It tops the coelacanth fish story.
> 
> In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh.  Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website.  It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.
> 
> Occam's Razor says it's just a fish.  And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster.  Thank you, forkup, you made my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.*
> That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't *claim* that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning.  A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant.  Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution.  All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE.  They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik.  It's right there at the website I use
> 
> What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
> 
> Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.
> 
> Tiktaalik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killer Whate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions.  Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)
> 
> Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?
Click to expand...

Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However




This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say they were two different creatures, they are the same creature one (changing) to another and demonstrates natures ability to change without intermittent steps (transitional fossil) - the same as one creatures stored program for change can occur in a single step from one species to create a new one - from Ape to Homo Sapien.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the ape shell split open and man popped out.  Ha ha.  You're hilarious.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> So, the ape shell split open and man popped out. Ha ha. You're hilarious.










forkup said:


> You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader.




and a fear for what isn't written for you, Bond ... and a true understanding for the dynamics of nature, The Triumph of Good vs Evil, the real quest to accomplish Admission to Everlasting.

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not here to change your mind.  Only you can do that.  I doubt any evidence will convince you different.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.
> 
> BTW the tiktaalik was a fish.  The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea.  The fossil evidence is sketchy.  It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins.  The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier.  Is this compelling evidence?
> The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Jeez Louise.  I think you made my point.  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?  I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos.  That's what they *claim* this *fish *had.  Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that?  They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil.  Then they claimed it was billions of years old.  What kind of fish story is that?  It tops the coelacanth fish story.
> 
> In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh.  Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website.  It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.
> 
> Occam's Razor says it's just a fish.  And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster.  Thank you, forkup, you made my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.*
> That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't *claim* that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning.  A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant.  Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution.  All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE.  They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik.  It's right there at the website I use
> 
> What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
> 
> Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.
> 
> Tiktaalik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killer Whate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions.  Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)
> 
> Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
Click to expand...


Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"

Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.

Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.

The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.

So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.

It's what I have been pointing out all along about these "transitional forms," and that is there has been questionable hypothesis to outright fraud.  There really isn't any transitional forms.  Instead, you present evidence for these forms like it should be accepted and everyone should know.  C'mon, now you're claiming the whale came from tiktaalik which became man and at the same time it went back to the sea and became a whale.  Talk about buying something hook, line and sinker.  When I read this originally on the evo website, I thought if was a "fish story."


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Jeez Louise.  I think you made my point.  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?  I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos.  That's what they *claim* this *fish *had.  Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that?  They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil.  Then they claimed it was billions of years old.  What kind of fish story is that?  It tops the coelacanth fish story.
> 
> In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh.  Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website.  It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.
> 
> Occam's Razor says it's just a fish.  And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster.  Thank you, forkup, you made my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.*
> That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't *claim* that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning.  A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant.  Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution.  All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE.  They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik.  It's right there at the website I use
> 
> What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
> 
> Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.
> 
> Tiktaalik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killer Whate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions.  Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)
> 
> Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
Click to expand...

Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.






*
This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Jeez Louise.  I think you made my point.  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?  I wasn't the one who put my foot-in-the-mouth, but the evos.  That's what they *claim* this *fish *had.  Can you imagine anyone catching a fish and claiming that?  They didn't catch the fish, but just found a fossil.  Then they claimed it was billions of years old.  What kind of fish story is that?  It tops the coelacanth fish story.
> 
> In this case, we can all share a ginormous laugh.  Go look up tiktaalik on my evolution.berkeley.edu website.  It has a model representation with shoulders and wrist to make it look like it can when you, I and Lutroo know that there isn't.
> 
> Occam's Razor says it's just a fish.  And you guys think we believe in these mythical creatures like a flying spaghetti monster.  Thank you, forkup, you made my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.*
> That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't *claim* that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning.  A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant.  Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution.  All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE.  They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik.  It's right there at the website I use
> 
> What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
> 
> Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.
> 
> Tiktaalik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killer Whate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions.  Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)
> 
> Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.

We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.






The origin of tetrapods

With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.

"In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."






The evolution of whales

Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.

We'll go back to Lucy again after this.


----------



## james bond

You know, I never was that interested in whales and would not go whale watching, but after the discussion of the tiktaalik and tetrapod, I'm willing to go.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.*
> That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't *claim* that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning.  A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant.  Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution.  All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE.  They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik.  It's right there at the website I use
> 
> What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
> 
> Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.
> 
> Tiktaalik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killer Whate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions.  Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)
> 
> Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
Click to expand...

Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.*
> That is the definition of transitional fossils. A definition that Tiktaalik fits. Evo's like you called it, don't *claim* that he had those traits. They know he had a flat head with eyes on top of it's head, because they found the skull, they know it had a wrist because they have the bones. They know it had a neck, because it lacked the bony plates in it gill area that restrict lateral head movement. So you can do as you usually do. Say haha alot, call me stupid, belittle me. Something btw I don't tend to do, because unlike you, my facts speak for themselfs. You gave anatomical traits that are not present in fish, so yes you did put your foot in, and "just a fish" like you said, makes you intellectually dishonest, but we already knew that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning.  A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant.  Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution.  All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE.  They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik.  It's right there at the website I use
> 
> What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
> 
> Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.
> 
> Tiktaalik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killer Whate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions.  Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)
> 
> Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>





james bond said:


> So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>



because there are transitional forms does not refute the bible as that evidence does exist but simply refutes Bond ...










> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111019221928.htm
> 
> The study, published in the journal _Nature_, has identified how links between tectonics and ocean and land chemistry combined to give rise to life on earth about 2.5 billion years ago, during a period known as the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.




_*The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.*_



life's emergence on planet Earth is nothing but transitional including the generation of oxygen that was first required (heaven and earth) before any of the lifeforms of genesis were possible ...


_*



			And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas ...

Click to expand...

*_*- *the above is a clear reference for evolution


Bond's disagreement with evolution is groundless even on a biblical basis ...

.......




> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."




their disagreement with evolution only involves the above and could not be any more self centered or fallacious than their entire rendering of their written bible.


Bond, stop scapegoating science with your make believe religion, a religion that does exist when properly defined for which you the bible are biased and fail miserably to accomplish.

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning.  A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant.  Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution.  All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE.  They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik.  It's right there at the website I use
> 
> What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
> 
> Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.
> 
> Tiktaalik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killer Whate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions.  Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)
> 
> Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.
Click to expand...


Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again.  Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms?  All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist.  I should add the lungfish since I found they exist.  Where does it lead?  The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists.  Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive?  Because it does not show a walking million years old fish!  Ding, ding, ding,  We have a winner!!!  The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.

Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil?  The lungfish is just a fish.  They will not evolve into humans.  We know its alive, so where is the evidence?  The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are.  The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales?  This was from two or three posts ago.  Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?

I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales.  Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs.  If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims.  Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.

I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence?  The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution.  I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms.  Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that.  I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology.  Biology does fine by itself.  So, how did the fins become legs?


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first three sentences exhibit circular reasoning.  A transitional fossil shows traits of an ancestor and descendant.  Tiktaalik fits that description, so it shows evolution.  All it shows are evos trying to fit the facts to the ToE.  They believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't make up the term shoulder and wrist to describe parts of the tiktaalik.  It's right there at the website I use
> 
> What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
> 
> Furthermore, its fin bones look like they could be transitional between a fish and a killer whale.
> 
> Tiktaalik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killer Whate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I do not think the above pics from separate sources represent the correct proportions.  Tiktaalik's fin is much smaller than that of a killer whales according to the article in New Scientist.)
> 
> Are you ready to admit that evolution is faith-based?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because there are transitional forms does not refute the bible as that evidence does exist but simply refutes Bond ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111019221928.htm
> 
> The study, published in the journal _Nature_, has identified how links between tectonics and ocean and land chemistry combined to give rise to life on earth about 2.5 billion years ago, during a period known as the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.*_
> 
> 
> 
> life's emergence on planet Earth is nothing but transitional including the generation of oxygen that was first required (heaven and earth) before any of the lifeforms of genesis were possible ...
> 
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> 
> And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *_*- *the above is a clear reference for evolution
> 
> 
> Bond's disagreement with evolution is groundless even on a biblical basis ...
> 
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> their disagreement with evolution only involves the above and could not be any more self centered or fallacious than their entire rendering of their written bible.
> 
> 
> Bond, stop scapegoating science with your make believe religion, a religion that does exist when properly defined for which you the bible are biased and fail miserably to accomplish.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  What happened to the biology?  Many atheists claim evolution is about biology.


----------



## IndependantAce

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because there are transitional forms does not refute the bible as that evidence does exist but simply refutes Bond ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111019221928.htm
> 
> The study, published in the journal _Nature_, has identified how links between tectonics and ocean and land chemistry combined to give rise to life on earth about 2.5 billion years ago, during a period known as the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.*_
> 
> 
> 
> life's emergence on planet Earth is nothing but transitional including the generation of oxygen that was first required (heaven and earth) before any of the lifeforms of genesis were possible ...
> 
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> 
> And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *_*- *the above is a clear reference for evolution
> 
> 
> Bond's disagreement with evolution is groundless even on a biblical basis ...
> 
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> their disagreement with evolution only involves the above and could not be any more self centered or fallacious than their entire rendering of their written bible.
> 
> 
> Bond, stop scapegoating science with your make believe religion, a religion that does exist when properly defined for which you the bible are biased and fail miserably to accomplish.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  What happened to the biology?  Many atheists claim evolution is about biology.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the nonsense about "life evolving by random chance" isn't even science - there's no biological concept of "randomness", it's just a silly philosophy pretending to be science, far sillier even than any notion of a "talking snake".


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again.  Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms?  All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist.  I should add the lungfish since I found they exist.  Where does it lead?  The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists.  Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive?  Because it does not show a walking million years old fish!  Ding, ding, ding,  We have a winner!!!  The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.
> 
> Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil?  The lungfish is just a fish.  They will not evolve into humans.  We know its alive, so where is the evidence?  The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are.  The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales?  This was from two or three posts ago.  Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?
> 
> I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales.  Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs.  If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims.  Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.
> 
> I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence?  The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution.  I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms.  Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that.  I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology.  Biology does fine by itself.  So, how did the fins become legs?
Click to expand...

Yup we are in wonderland.




This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I  didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again.  Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms?  All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist.  I should add the lungfish since I found they exist.  Where does it lead?  The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists.  Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive?  Because it does not show a walking million years old fish!  Ding, ding, ding,  We have a winner!!!  The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.
> 
> Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil?  The lungfish is just a fish.  They will not evolve into humans.  We know its alive, so where is the evidence?  The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are.  The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales?  This was from two or three posts ago.  Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?
> 
> I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales.  Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs.  If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims.  Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.
> 
> I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence?  The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution.  I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms.  Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that.  I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology.  Biology does fine by itself.  So, how did the fins become legs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup we are in wonderland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I  didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.
Click to expand...


I'm addressing your complaints that I skipped over the other transitional forms.  Moreover, on lungfish, if it exists today, then it can't be millions of years old and extinct.  Is that another error?

In the area of fishes, you have to admit that coelacanth could not have been a transitional form.  Another one bites the dust.

So, where is this evidence or link of tiktaalik going from a to b?  And why does your picture not show the bone structure of the hand and five fingers like my infograph?  Compare it with the photos you posted of the fossil evidence.  There is no hand.

And why do you think this means tetrapod?  You still haven't addressed it could have become a whale?  Because you want to fit the facts to the ToE?

All of the links I provide on evolution is probably written for the middle-schooler to high school student similar to wikipedia.

BTW I found a link for Lucy and it backs up that she was just a chimp.  The professor who put Lucy back together, whom I mentioned earlier, does not think we came from chimpanzee-like apes and he's an evo scientist -- News Detail .  Do you agree Lucy and Arvi are not what you thought they were?


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, every time I talk to you I fall over the same thing. I always assume I'm talking to a reasonable person, who want's to argue on merit. It's a definite weakness when talking to someone like you. I assume some thing are self evident. But no. Ok your website. First of. A crocodile is an Amphibian it is not a fish. I thaught that was pretty obvious, but apperently not. A killer whale, is not a fish. It is a mamal that reverted back to the sea. We know this for a couple of reasons. First of the fossil record for the transition is become well established. Second of, in embrioligy whale fetuses at a point in there development start growing hind limbs, wich are then discarded. However
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a modern Blue Whale they keep this, these bones are not attached they reside in the blubber it's the residu of their hind legs. They serve no function still they are there.There is a number of differences between whales and fish. First of. They reproduce by different means. Fish lay eggs, whales give birth to life baby's they also feed them by mamary glands. They have lungs, no gills. So they can't breath underwater. Their skeleton is bone, unlike most fish where it is cartilage. You have again made my point with this. In order for you to argue creationism. You had to feign or actually have a level of knowledge less then a fifth grader. The fact that whales aren't fish is general knowledge and the fact that I had to explain these facts and yes these are facts is a clear example of why, you should never, ever teach creationism as a science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you getting upset?  You're the one who didn't know evos used the terms neck, shoulder and wrist for tiktaalik and said I had put my foot-in-my-mouth.  In the same post, you stated, "There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"
> 
> Let's examine what you believe without evidence.  First, whether tiktaalik actually had a neck, shoulder and wrist.  There has been no fish found to have such anatomy.  You even tried and failed to make fun of it.  Many scientists have looked at the fossils and think it's a fish.  I showed you the evidence for it being a fish.  That seems more likely than today's claim of the tiktaalik became a land animal which eventually became man while the Ambulocetus went back and became a whale.
> 
> Moreover, the claim by evolution.berkeley.edu that tiktaalik is a transitional form is far-fetched.  If so, we would see much more of these "transitional forms" like the ones they picture in their graph.  Thus, I would think tiktaalik is misgrouped.  However, they can't admit that or else they are admitting there is no transitional form.
> 
> The fins were to show out that tiktaalik could be more a transitional form, thinking like an evolutionist, from fish to whales.  Why didn't the evos think that?  We know that's not what the evos claim.  Yes, creation scientists and I know that fish and whales aren't the same, but I'm trying to use transitional forms.  It's to point out that evolutionists try to fit the facts to their ToE.
> 
> So, now it's on to whales.  Oh brother.  How about admitting that you were wrong about the shoulders and wrist statement?  More importantly, an intelligent person should question what these evos claim are transitional forms.  There should be more evidence for transitional forms if they're correct like with the other creatures they have grouped together such as sharks, ray-finned fishes, coelacanth, etc.  Thus, why even move on to discussing whales when evos do not have the evidence for tiktaalik except one where they stretched the truth like Lucy's skeleton and its hip joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:21 So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because there are transitional forms does not refute the bible as that evidence does exist but simply refutes Bond ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111019221928.htm
> 
> The study, published in the journal _Nature_, has identified how links between tectonics and ocean and land chemistry combined to give rise to life on earth about 2.5 billion years ago, during a period known as the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*The GOE changed surface environments on Earth and ultimately made advanced life possible.*_
> 
> 
> 
> life's emergence on planet Earth is nothing but transitional including the generation of oxygen that was first required (heaven and earth) before any of the lifeforms of genesis were possible ...
> 
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> 
> And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *_*- *the above is a clear reference for evolution
> 
> 
> Bond's disagreement with evolution is groundless even on a biblical basis ...
> 
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> their disagreement with evolution only involves the above and could not be any more self centered or fallacious than their entire rendering of their written bible.
> 
> 
> Bond, stop scapegoating science with your make believe religion, a religion that does exist when properly defined for which you the bible are biased and fail miserably to accomplish.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  What happened to the biology?  Many atheists claim evolution is about biology.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Ha ha. What happened to the biology? Many atheists claim evolution is about biology.






james bond said:


> I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology. Biology does fine by itself. So, how did the fins become legs?



_*
Many atheists claim evolution is about biology ... but evolution is irrelevant to biology.*_


_*... So, how did the fins become legs?*_










BreezeWood said:


> the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.




you are unwilling to engage the mechananisms for change  ...

metamorphosis is a purity of religion which biology the same as humanity only kid themselves as Bond that they would exist without its presence. 

.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


IndependantAce said:


> Not to mention the nonsense about "life evolving by random chance" isn't even science - there's no biological concept of "randomness", it's just a silly philosophy pretending to be science, far sillier even than any notion of a "talking snake".


.
I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation, christian. that is not a random chance.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine in the case of tiktaalik it had a shoulder and wrist and it was a fish so there, No problem. Now, I never and more importantly not any scientist has actually ever claimed tiktaalik wasn't a fish. What every single one of them claims is that it had early tetrapod traits. It had a flat head with it's eyes on the top of it's heads and it had a well developed shoulder and wrist bone. As to the neck as I mentioned before. the reason fish can't move those particular vertebrea is because they have bony plates in the gill chamber that prevents lateral movement.Tiktaalik had no such plates in it's gill chambers. All these things they directly derived from the fossil. They have all these pieces of it's anatomy. So whenever you say oh these are assumptions you are plain wrong. These anotomical traits are undisputed unless if you are, to put it bluntly, completely of bad faith. Btw they have found the transitional forms from land animals to full blown whales but I'll leave that for now. The reason they would never put tiktaalik as a transitional form to whales are pretty obvious, unless of course you are you. First of, about 325 million years of evolution seperates the 2. Now, I know you don't believe in those timeframes but, the find itself proves it. Like I said Tiktaalik was found because, evolution, geoligy and paleontoligy, predicted in what rock, in time, in location and in habitat that particular fossil should be found. It was not a chance find. Second the anatomical traits of both species don't allow the one to be the transitional form of the other. If nothing else altough it is strongly assumed that tiktaalik had lungs of some kind we KNOW it had gills.The fact that it has no gills of any sort means that whales had to have come from the land otherwise there would be no evolutionary reason for a whale to have lost it gills in the first place. *Oh and do me a favour stop mentioning Lucy you are obviously not prepared to back up that accusation with anything but your word and you now seem to have a problem keeping your lie straight since you changed it from knee to hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> This is just to show you how much of a fossil they have to make what you call assumptions without proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again.  Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms?  All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist.  I should add the lungfish since I found they exist.  Where does it lead?  The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists.  Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive?  Because it does not show a walking million years old fish!  Ding, ding, ding,  We have a winner!!!  The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.
> 
> Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil?  The lungfish is just a fish.  They will not evolve into humans.  We know its alive, so where is the evidence?  The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are.  The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales?  This was from two or three posts ago.  Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?
> 
> I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales.  Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs.  If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims.  Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.
> 
> I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence?  The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution.  I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms.  Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that.  I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology.  Biology does fine by itself.  So, how did the fins become legs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup we are in wonderland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I  didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm addressing your complaints that I skipped over the other transitional forms.  Moreover, on lungfish, if it exists today, then it can't be millions of years old and extinct.  Is that another error?
> 
> In the area of fishes, you have to admit that coelacanth could not have been a transitional form.  Another one bites the dust.
> 
> So, where is this evidence or link of tiktaalik going from a to b?  And why does your picture not show the bone structure of the hand and five fingers like my infograph?  Compare it with the photos you posted of the fossil evidence.  There is no hand.
> 
> And why do you think this means tetrapod?  You still haven't addressed it could have become a whale?  Because you want to fit the facts to the ToE?
> 
> All of the links I provide on evolution is probably written for the middle-schooler to high school student similar to wikipedia.
> 
> BTW I found a link for Lucy and it backs up that she was just a chimp.  The professor who put Lucy back together, whom I mentioned earlier, does not think we came from chimpanzee-like apes and he's an evo scientist -- News Detail .  Do you agree Lucy and Arvi are not what you thought they were?
Click to expand...








-Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
-I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
- There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
-There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
-If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.


----------



## the_human_being

Alright already. I claim I was created by God and you claim you came from a monkey. You have convinced me.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the nonsense about "life evolving by random chance" isn't even science - there's no biological concept of "randomness", it's just a silly philosophy pretending to be science, far sillier even than any notion of a "talking snake".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation, christian. that is not a random chance.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa.  I'm still lmao.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.  I wouldn't say every scientist, but I suppose you mean evo scientist.  Let's stop and examine this for a moment.  If you look at the pictures you posted, would you relate it to a tetrapod?  If it was, then there would be more of it like the other tetrapods.  Wouldn't there?  There would be more living tetrapods.  Instead, we have whales that they supposedly became.
> 
> We got ray-finned fishes that are the fish we have today and the coelacanth.  The others are supposed to be extinct.  So, the evidence is there for a fish, but not these tetrapods.  So based on the neck, shoulder, wrist, they are claiming it became human.  This is sketchy.  Instead, I said isn't it more likely that it became a whale, thinking like an evo?  Then they have the millions of years which is sketchy because they were wrong about the coelacanth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of tetrapods
> 
> With the whale, the evos claim it is related to a hippopotamus.  However, they can't find the ancestor to a whale, so they claim the sketchy tetrapod.
> 
> "In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of whales
> 
> Here's what the Bible says in Genesis, "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."  Genesis 1:21  So far, science backs up the Bible because there is no evidence of a transitional form <cough> to the whale, but the sketchy tiktaalik and tetrapod.  Again, I would say it was the tiktaalik that was the ancestor f I had my evo scientist hat on, but that does not fit the ToE, does it?  God also created the leviathan as part of the great sea creatures.
> 
> We'll go back to Lucy again after this.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again.  Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms?  All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist.  I should add the lungfish since I found they exist.  Where does it lead?  The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists.  Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive?  Because it does not show a walking million years old fish!  Ding, ding, ding,  We have a winner!!!  The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.
> 
> Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil?  The lungfish is just a fish.  They will not evolve into humans.  We know its alive, so where is the evidence?  The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are.  The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales?  This was from two or three posts ago.  Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?
> 
> I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales.  Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs.  If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims.  Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.
> 
> I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence?  The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution.  I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms.  Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that.  I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology.  Biology does fine by itself.  So, how did the fins become legs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup we are in wonderland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I  didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm addressing your complaints that I skipped over the other transitional forms.  Moreover, on lungfish, if it exists today, then it can't be millions of years old and extinct.  Is that another error?
> 
> In the area of fishes, you have to admit that coelacanth could not have been a transitional form.  Another one bites the dust.
> 
> So, where is this evidence or link of tiktaalik going from a to b?  And why does your picture not show the bone structure of the hand and five fingers like my infograph?  Compare it with the photos you posted of the fossil evidence.  There is no hand.
> 
> And why do you think this means tetrapod?  You still haven't addressed it could have become a whale?  Because you want to fit the facts to the ToE?
> 
> All of the links I provide on evolution is probably written for the middle-schooler to high school student similar to wikipedia.
> 
> BTW I found a link for Lucy and it backs up that she was just a chimp.  The professor who put Lucy back together, whom I mentioned earlier, does not think we came from chimpanzee-like apes and he's an evo scientist -- News Detail .  Do you agree Lucy and Arvi are not what you thought they were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 81399
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
> -I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
> - There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
> -There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
> -If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...


The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago.  The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006.  Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears.  Just crazy.  To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline.  Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik.  This period is called Romer's gap.

Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938.  We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story.  For those interested, here is the story.


So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?

And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?

Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?

I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee.  Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together.  He does not think much information can be gleaned from it.  Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it.  Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape.  The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated.  I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi.  Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link.  Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information.  Why don't you go from there?  For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.

BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post.  Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the nonsense about "life evolving by random chance" isn't even science - there's no biological concept of "randomness", it's just a silly philosophy pretending to be science, far sillier even than any notion of a "talking snake".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation, christian. that is not a random chance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa.  I'm still lmao.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa. I'm still lmao.







  . Bond

_*

"These undifferentiated cells are then differentiated into cells which eventually form the new physical being".
*_

tell us oh high and mighty where is your brain while you are transforming from an earthing to an aviast in search of your mate ?

and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you are dim. So there aren't enough tetrapods to your liking, what about every four legged creature that ever lived? Nobody ever claimed they are the direct decendants of whales, I explained to you why. that is the defenition of tetrapods.The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods /ˈtɛtrəpɒd/, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and some ancient, exclusively aquatic creatures such as the Acanthostega. I find this entire converation turning surreal. You can not deny what you see you quite clearly see traits of 2 major classes of animals, namely fish and four legged animals. If you claim only evolutianary scientist claim this. Give me 1 name of a creationist scientist who disputes this. You also seem to have trouble reading again. What you see in that evogram is a step by step account of anatomical changes backed by actual fossil finds to go from 1 class of animals to the next, the reason they added humans, is to illustrate, that we too belong in this succession only as one of the latest,not of course as a direct decendant. Many, many more adaptations have to occur to make a creature human. But the rough body plan of our arms is discribed here. And with sketchy claims you again mean fossils they actually found. Why call something sketchy if you can point to a succession of recovered fossils. Every single one of wich gives you a more and more whale like creature. You can litteraly point to changes in the anatomy, in each successive species. Each is clearly linked to the 1 before and to the 1 after. These are not claims these are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again.  Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms?  All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist.  I should add the lungfish since I found they exist.  Where does it lead?  The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists.  Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive?  Because it does not show a walking million years old fish!  Ding, ding, ding,  We have a winner!!!  The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.
> 
> Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil?  The lungfish is just a fish.  They will not evolve into humans.  We know its alive, so where is the evidence?  The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are.  The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales?  This was from two or three posts ago.  Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?
> 
> I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales.  Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs.  If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims.  Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.
> 
> I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence?  The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution.  I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms.  Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that.  I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology.  Biology does fine by itself.  So, how did the fins become legs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup we are in wonderland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I  didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm addressing your complaints that I skipped over the other transitional forms.  Moreover, on lungfish, if it exists today, then it can't be millions of years old and extinct.  Is that another error?
> 
> In the area of fishes, you have to admit that coelacanth could not have been a transitional form.  Another one bites the dust.
> 
> So, where is this evidence or link of tiktaalik going from a to b?  And why does your picture not show the bone structure of the hand and five fingers like my infograph?  Compare it with the photos you posted of the fossil evidence.  There is no hand.
> 
> And why do you think this means tetrapod?  You still haven't addressed it could have become a whale?  Because you want to fit the facts to the ToE?
> 
> All of the links I provide on evolution is probably written for the middle-schooler to high school student similar to wikipedia.
> 
> BTW I found a link for Lucy and it backs up that she was just a chimp.  The professor who put Lucy back together, whom I mentioned earlier, does not think we came from chimpanzee-like apes and he's an evo scientist -- News Detail .  Do you agree Lucy and Arvi are not what you thought they were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 81399
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
> -I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
> - There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
> -There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
> -If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago.  The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006.  Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears.  Just crazy.  To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline.  Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik.  This period is called Romer's gap.
> 
> Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938.  We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story.  For those interested, here is the story.
> 
> 
> So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?
> 
> And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?
> 
> Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?
> 
> I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee.  Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together.  He does not think much information can be gleaned from it.  Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it.  Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape.  The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated.  I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi.  Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link.  Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information.  Why don't you go from there?  For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.
> 
> BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post.  Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?
Click to expand...

-See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
-As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
-I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. *Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? *Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.


----------



## xband

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again.  Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms?  All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist.  I should add the lungfish since I found they exist.  Where does it lead?  The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists.  Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive?  Because it does not show a walking million years old fish!  Ding, ding, ding,  We have a winner!!!  The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.
> 
> Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil?  The lungfish is just a fish.  They will not evolve into humans.  We know its alive, so where is the evidence?  The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are.  The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales?  This was from two or three posts ago.  Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?
> 
> I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales.  Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs.  If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims.  Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.
> 
> I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence?  The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution.  I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms.  Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that.  I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology.  Biology does fine by itself.  So, how did the fins become legs?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup we are in wonderland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I  didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm addressing your complaints that I skipped over the other transitional forms.  Moreover, on lungfish, if it exists today, then it can't be millions of years old and extinct.  Is that another error?
> 
> In the area of fishes, you have to admit that coelacanth could not have been a transitional form.  Another one bites the dust.
> 
> So, where is this evidence or link of tiktaalik going from a to b?  And why does your picture not show the bone structure of the hand and five fingers like my infograph?  Compare it with the photos you posted of the fossil evidence.  There is no hand.
> 
> And why do you think this means tetrapod?  You still haven't addressed it could have become a whale?  Because you want to fit the facts to the ToE?
> 
> All of the links I provide on evolution is probably written for the middle-schooler to high school student similar to wikipedia.
> 
> BTW I found a link for Lucy and it backs up that she was just a chimp.  The professor who put Lucy back together, whom I mentioned earlier, does not think we came from chimpanzee-like apes and he's an evo scientist -- News Detail .  Do you agree Lucy and Arvi are not what you thought they were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 81399
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
> -I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
> - There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
> -There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
> -If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago.  The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006.  Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears.  Just crazy.  To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline.  Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik.  This period is called Romer's gap.
> 
> Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938.  We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story.  For those interested, here is the story.
> 
> 
> So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?
> 
> And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?
> 
> Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?
> 
> I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee.  Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together.  He does not think much information can be gleaned from it.  Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it.  Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape.  The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated.  I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi.  Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link.  Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information.  Why don't you go from there?  For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.
> 
> BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post.  Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
> -As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
> -I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. *Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? *Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.
Click to expand...


God did it!


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> IndependantAce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the nonsense about "life evolving by random chance" isn't even science - there's no biological concept of "randomness", it's just a silly philosophy pretending to be science, far sillier even than any notion of a "talking snake".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation, christian. that is not a random chance.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa.  I'm still lmao.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you weren't in class when they talked about the larva and pupa. I'm still lmao.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Bond
> 
> _*
> 
> "These undifferentiated cells are then differentiated into cells which eventually form the new physical being".
> *_
> 
> tell us oh high and mighty where is your brain while you are transforming from an earthing to an aviast in search of your mate ?
> 
> and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


C U later Durwood.  I mean Breezy.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starting in with the ad hominem attacks again.  Are you butthurt that I destroyed a major evidence of your transitional forms?  All I said was where are these creatures now when the ray-finned fishes and coelacanth exist.  I should add the lungfish since I found they exist.  Where does it lead?  The coelacanth was embarrassing for the evo scientists.  Have you asked yourself why these evo scientists do not talk about this fish more since it's alive?  Because it does not show a walking million years old fish!  Ding, ding, ding,  We have a winner!!!  The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore.
> 
> Why not admit you are wrong in this theory of tiktaalik to man based on a fossil?  The lungfish is just a fish.  They will not evolve into humans.  We know its alive, so where is the evidence?  The other ones are sketchy since they're all extinct or at least we think they are.  The evos do use the wrist structure to show that they are like humans, but why didn't they state they could be an ancestors to whales?  This was from two or three posts ago.  Do these points I am making just fly over your head because of your dimness?
> 
> I should be the one who says this conversation is turning surreal as you're basing things on fairy tales.  Today, you claim humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs.  If science backed up your evidence, then I would believe your claims.  Until then, it's just theories that usually turn out wrong.
> 
> I know what a tetrapod is, so why not use it as evidence?  The origin of tetrapods from a fish-like ancestor in the Devonian Period is of major importance to evolution.  I'm not quibbling about them, but the transitional forms.  Again, it's a fairy tale to claim that.  I'm fine with biology, but evolution is irrelevant to biology.  Biology does fine by itself.  So, how did the fins become legs?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup we are in wonderland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I  didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm addressing your complaints that I skipped over the other transitional forms.  Moreover, on lungfish, if it exists today, then it can't be millions of years old and extinct.  Is that another error?
> 
> In the area of fishes, you have to admit that coelacanth could not have been a transitional form.  Another one bites the dust.
> 
> So, where is this evidence or link of tiktaalik going from a to b?  And why does your picture not show the bone structure of the hand and five fingers like my infograph?  Compare it with the photos you posted of the fossil evidence.  There is no hand.
> 
> And why do you think this means tetrapod?  You still haven't addressed it could have become a whale?  Because you want to fit the facts to the ToE?
> 
> All of the links I provide on evolution is probably written for the middle-schooler to high school student similar to wikipedia.
> 
> BTW I found a link for Lucy and it backs up that she was just a chimp.  The professor who put Lucy back together, whom I mentioned earlier, does not think we came from chimpanzee-like apes and he's an evo scientist -- News Detail .  Do you agree Lucy and Arvi are not what you thought they were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 81399
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
> -I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
> - There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
> -There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
> -If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago.  The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006.  Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears.  Just crazy.  To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline.  Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik.  This period is called Romer's gap.
> 
> Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938.  We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story.  For those interested, here is the story.
> 
> 
> So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?
> 
> And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?
> 
> Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?
> 
> I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee.  Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together.  He does not think much information can be gleaned from it.  Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it.  Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape.  The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated.  I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi.  Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link.  Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information.  Why don't you go from there?  For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.
> 
> BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post.  Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
> -As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
> -I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. *Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? *Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.
Click to expand...


So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils?  Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories?  Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"

So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx?  People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too.  And the Piltdown Man.

I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.

Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps?  Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?

As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy.  According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there.  I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines.  However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting.  Care to expound on Ardipithecus?

Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus.  He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha.  He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?).  I guess you weren't able to catch that.

Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star















.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup we are in wonderland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how. Tiktaalik is halfway between these.What in the hell did you destroy you think?You wanted a transitional fossil.I  didn't give you a 'crockoduck',but a 'crockofish', btw this is a joke I'll say that now since I believe I'm talking to a 5 year old. A fish with a definite not fish like skull, a definete not fish like neck,and a definite not completly fish like bone structure in it's arm/fin.You are LOOKING at a transitional form.What arragments of features would be acceptable to you? To me if I can show features of 2 different classes of animals I was under the impression it would be transitional but apparently, James has a different opinion on wat transitional would be.You know moving the goalposts in most sports is considered cheating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm addressing your complaints that I skipped over the other transitional forms.  Moreover, on lungfish, if it exists today, then it can't be millions of years old and extinct.  Is that another error?
> 
> In the area of fishes, you have to admit that coelacanth could not have been a transitional form.  Another one bites the dust.
> 
> So, where is this evidence or link of tiktaalik going from a to b?  And why does your picture not show the bone structure of the hand and five fingers like my infograph?  Compare it with the photos you posted of the fossil evidence.  There is no hand.
> 
> And why do you think this means tetrapod?  You still haven't addressed it could have become a whale?  Because you want to fit the facts to the ToE?
> 
> All of the links I provide on evolution is probably written for the middle-schooler to high school student similar to wikipedia.
> 
> BTW I found a link for Lucy and it backs up that she was just a chimp.  The professor who put Lucy back together, whom I mentioned earlier, does not think we came from chimpanzee-like apes and he's an evo scientist -- News Detail .  Do you agree Lucy and Arvi are not what you thought they were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 81399
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
> -I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
> - There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
> -There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
> -If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago.  The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006.  Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears.  Just crazy.  To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline.  Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik.  This period is called Romer's gap.
> 
> Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938.  We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story.  For those interested, here is the story.
> 
> 
> So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?
> 
> And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?
> 
> Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?
> 
> I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee.  Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together.  He does not think much information can be gleaned from it.  Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it.  Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape.  The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated.  I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi.  Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link.  Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information.  Why don't you go from there?  For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.
> 
> BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post.  Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
> -As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
> -I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. *Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? *Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils?  Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories?  Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"
> 
> So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx?  People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too.  And the Piltdown Man.
> 
> I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.
> 
> Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps?  Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?
> 
> As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy.  According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there.  I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines.  However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting.  Care to expound on Ardipithecus?
> 
> Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus.  He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha.  He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?).  I guess you weren't able to catch that.
> 
> Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You litteraly take the single sentence you think you can use in that article and run it right out of the stadium. I showed you the actual fossil, I challenge you to find another representation of Ardi. I don't know, but that picture doesn't look like any human I've ever seen. I'm not upset at best I am frustrated, because unlike you I don't try to hide the fact that science or me has all the answers. When I can't prove something I say so, when I make a wrong statement, I say so. And I'm talking to someone who does neither of those things, when I destroy your logic train which I have done dozens of times in the course of these conversations, you ignore or deny never face up. When I pose questions wich you can't answer, ( which is all of them), you don't accept the premise, deflect or ignore the question altogheter. When I don't answer a question usually because I answered it already. Or I don't feel that I want to broaden the scope of the conversation even more. You accuse me of deflecting,not taking into account that you tried to question about 8 other things I did adress. This whole Tiktaalik thing is perfect example. I put forth to you that the fact that they found Tiktaalik is proof of dating methods, geoligy and transitional fossils, you keep on getting stuck on whales and fins and other stuff. While you only have to look at the damn skull to see it is transitional. Throughout this entire conversation, we have worked by a different set of rules. I have followed mostly only what I can prove, not generally using what we hypothesise although my hypothesis have science behind it. You have basicly used, everything what you think speaks for you, regardless if it was provable or in most cases even actively disproven. You have given yourself the luxery of ignoring what you feel puts you in a tight spot. I have had to in numerous occasions go and look stuff up in order to answer some of your objections. taking up a considerable time of my day. I don't consider it time wasted since I've learned an insane ammount about branches of science and the scientific method itself. But unless you start playing in the same rules I play with. By wich I mean you don't say anything you can actually prove by using logic, I see no point in continuing.* If you want to continue I propose to ask one question the other side HAS to answer using logic and outside sources.*


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm addressing your complaints that I skipped over the other transitional forms.  Moreover, on lungfish, if it exists today, then it can't be millions of years old and extinct.  Is that another error?
> 
> In the area of fishes, you have to admit that coelacanth could not have been a transitional form.  Another one bites the dust.
> 
> So, where is this evidence or link of tiktaalik going from a to b?  And why does your picture not show the bone structure of the hand and five fingers like my infograph?  Compare it with the photos you posted of the fossil evidence.  There is no hand.
> 
> And why do you think this means tetrapod?  You still haven't addressed it could have become a whale?  Because you want to fit the facts to the ToE?
> 
> All of the links I provide on evolution is probably written for the middle-schooler to high school student similar to wikipedia.
> 
> BTW I found a link for Lucy and it backs up that she was just a chimp.  The professor who put Lucy back together, whom I mentioned earlier, does not think we came from chimpanzee-like apes and he's an evo scientist -- News Detail .  Do you agree Lucy and Arvi are not what you thought they were?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 81399
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
> -I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
> - There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
> -There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
> -If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago.  The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006.  Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears.  Just crazy.  To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline.  Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik.  This period is called Romer's gap.
> 
> Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938.  We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story.  For those interested, here is the story.
> 
> 
> So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?
> 
> And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?
> 
> Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?
> 
> I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee.  Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together.  He does not think much information can be gleaned from it.  Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it.  Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape.  The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated.  I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi.  Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link.  Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information.  Why don't you go from there?  For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.
> 
> BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post.  Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
> -As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
> -I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. *Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? *Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils?  Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories?  Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"
> 
> So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx?  People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too.  And the Piltdown Man.
> 
> I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.
> 
> Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps?  Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?
> 
> As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy.  According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there.  I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines.  However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting.  Care to expound on Ardipithecus?
> 
> Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus.  He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha.  He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?).  I guess you weren't able to catch that.
> 
> Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You litteraly take the single sentence you think you can use in that article and run it right out of the stadium. I showed you the actual fossil, I challenge you to find another representation of Ardi. I don't know, but that picture doesn't look like any human I've ever seen. I'm not upset at best I am frustrated, because unlike you I don't try to hide the fact that science or me has all the answers. When I can't prove something I say so, when I make a wrong statement, I say so. And I'm talking to someone who does neither of those things, when I destroy your logic train which I have done dozens of times in the course of these conversations, you ignore or deny never face up. When I pose questions wich you can't answer, ( which is all of them), you don't accept the premise, deflect or ignore the question altogheter. When I don't answer a question usually because I answered it already. Or I don't feel that I want to broaden the scope of the conversation even more. You accuse me of deflecting,not taking into account that you tried to question about 8 other things I did adress. This whole Tiktaalik thing is perfect example. I put forth to you that the fact that they found Tiktaalik is proof of dating methods, geoligy and transitional fossils, you keep on getting stuck on whales and fins and other stuff. While you only have to look at the damn skull to see it is transitional. Throughout this entire conversation, we have worked by a different set of rules. I have followed mostly only what I can prove, not generally using what we hypothesise although my hypothesis have science behind it. You have basicly used, everything what you think speaks for you, regardless if it was provable or in most cases even actively disproven. You have given yourself the luxery of ignoring what you feel puts you in a tight spot. I have had to in numerous occasions go and look stuff up in order to answer some of your objections. taking up a considerable time of my day. I don't consider it time wasted since I've learned an insane ammount about branches of science and the scientific method itself. But unless you start playing in the same rules I play with. By wich I mean you don't say anything you can actually prove by using logic, I see no point in continuing.* If you want to continue I propose to ask one question the other side HAS to answer using logic and outside sources.*
Click to expand...


So, are you saying now that science does not have the answers?  How can that be when evolution is a "fact?"  Are you agreeing with me that evolution is not fact and that there are many questions and controversies about it?  I think I have provided more facts to refute evolution.  One of my key points has been evolution does not answer the questions and this is one of the key questions.  Otherwise, let's continue to march forward.

I did no such thing of taking a sentence from Professor Lovejoy and running with it.  It's the conclusion he came to.  Why do I have to look up Ardi when we have the expert Prof. Lovejoy?  Here's his paper if it will make you happy -- "Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus Ramidus" by C. Owen Lovejoy .  If you can't read that, try here -- Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus | Science .

My link shows that the professor clarified his statements to the press.  This is official because it's on the Kent State U website.  I am giving you his statement that apes evolved from humans.  Why can't this be a new direction for evolution?  I'm not being facetious about this.  Here is another news article clarifying Professor Lovejoy's stance for the less scientific-minded  --  Study: Man did not evolve from apes .

I believe him when he says that Ardipitecus provides more information.  From his study, he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes.  You continue to claim that Ardi was an ape-human.  Where is your proof?  Just like the tiktaalik, Ardi is a recreation to favor evolution of man evolving from apes.

The other thing I want to bring up is to question the tree of life in this situation.  Here are the players.  I am referring to the ape creatures.  Evos like to call them apemen.

"Marvin Lubenow shows that the various alleged ‘apemen’ do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ‘ages,’ but overlap considerably. For example, the timespan of _Homo sapiens_ fossils contains the timespan of the fossils of _Homo erectus_, supposedly our ancestor. Also, when the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. The morphology overlaps too—the analysis of a number of characteristics indicates that _Homo ergaster_, _H. erectus_, _H. neanderthalensis_ as well as _H. heidelbergensis_, were most likely ‘racial’ variants of modern man, while _H. habilis_ and another specimen called _H. rudolfensis_ were just types of australopithecines. In fact, _H. habilis_ is now regarded as an invalid name, probably caused by assigning fragments of australopithecines and _H. erectus_ fossils into this ‘taxonomic waste bin

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, current dating of Australopiths, _Ar. kaddaba_ and _Ar. ramidus_ coexisted; _A. afarensis_, _K. platyops_, _A. bahrelgazali_, and _A. africanus_ all coexisted; _P. aethiopicus_, _A. africanus_, _A. garhi_, _H. habilis_, and _H. rudolfensis_ all coexisted; and _A. sediba_, _P. boisei_, _H. rudolfensis_, and _H. habilis_ all coexisted as well.  A large number of hominins therefore coexisted and thus are 'offshoots' which could not have evolved from one another, resulting in a messy 'bush'. Rather than a nice orderly tree progression, they're living at the same times. Instead of having descended from one another, scientists now use the term offshoots, since as famous paleontologist Meave Leakey has noted, "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that _Homo erectus_ evolved from _Homo habilis_."

There are even more hominids found which I won't list here due to space.

What I am getting at is after Ardi, your tree of life has become a very messy "bush."  How do explain this?  Perhaps Professor Lovejoy has the better theory.

And I'm not getting stuck on fins, because I'm theorizing just like you about tiktaalik to a whale.  Why can't you accept that it's a valid question to research?  Furthermore, nobody here understands how tiktaalik is supposed to have become a tetrapod and then the tetrapod into a whale from you explanations.  Stick to the main point and please answer my questions.


----------



## james bond

Here are some creationist arguments to rebut the common arguments against a 7-day creation week.  Yes, creationists can "science the sh*t outta things."  Another atheist myth bites the dust.  Atheists are wrong again.

Tree Rings as a Natural Clock
Evolutionist argues:
'We cannot date a worldwide flood 4,000 YBP [years before present] with bristlecone pine mountain trees 5,066 YBP still alive in California.  And with continuous growth records of Sub-Boreal Pines and German Oak trees going back 11,490 YBP with cross matching for European trees. But this is just one kind of natural “clock.”'






Creationist replies:
'There are several fundamental problems with using tree rings as reliable natural clocks. Beyond the fact that more or less than one ring can be added to a tree per year, the main problem with using “dendrochronology” as a reliable natural clock, independent of other forms of calibration, is that matching rings from different pieces of wood isn’t remotely a dependable science.  And, this has been known for some time now.  In a 1986 paper, “_Interpretation of cross correlation between tree-ring series_“, Yamaguchi recognized that overlapping tree rings from different trees tend to “auto correlate” or actually cross-match with each other in several different places within a tree-ring sequence.  What he did to prove this is quite interesting.  He took a 290-ring Douglas-fir log known, by historical methods, to date between AD 1482 and 1668 and demonstrated that it could cross-match in multiple different places within the Pacific Northwest Douglas Fir Master Growth-ring Sequence to give very good “t-values.” A t-value is given to a “wiggle-match” on the basis of a statistical analysis of the correspondence between two wood samples. This statistical assessment is done by computer which assigns high t-values (3 and above) to good wiggle-matches and low t-values (below 3) to those with poor correspondence between the ring patterns.  Amazingly, using such t-value analysis, Yamaguchi found 113 different matches having a confidence level of greater than 99.9%. For example, Yamaguchi demonstrated that his log could cross-match with other tree-ring sequences to give t-values of around 5 at AD 1504 (for the low end of the ring age), 7 at AD 1647 and 4.5 at AD 1763. Six of these matches were non-overlapping. That means that this particular piece of wood could be dated to be any one of those six vastly different ages to within a 99.9% degree of confidence Radiocarbon Dating .  Because of this fundamental problem, many of the most well-known tree-ring series are fatally flawed.'






'Should one expect tree-ring-growth patterns to produce genuine correspondences at the same historical dates when the climates (and in particular the micro-climates) of Ireland, England and Germany are so different? Clearly, dendrochronology, although possibly helpful for the dating of certain relative events, is nowhere near an exact science. In this line, consider the frustration of Rod A. Savidge, a professor of tree physiology/biochemistry, Forestry, and Environmental Management at the University of New Brunswick. He vented the following interesting comments regarding the science of dendrochronology, published in a Letter to the Editor in the _New York Times_, November of 2002:'

“As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology “research” . . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method.” - Rod Sadridge, PhD


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 81399
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Yup this ancestor solves all your problems,lol.That's the fossil your link refers to. You can not come up with any link that confirms your accusation so you came up with another link that claims invalidates Lucy in favour for an older ape like ancestor. Compounding your problem. The problem anthropoligist face today is the cheer number of transitional homonids found making it's classification difficult. That's what this article is about.
> -I have already told you why tiktaalik can not be a direct ancestor to whales.( age and incorrect anatomical traits).
> - There are plenty of very old bodyplans.crocodilians are 180 million years old, yellyfish are at least 500 milion years old.
> -There doesn't have to be a hand, you can infer it's composition by looking at where mussls and tendons attach. And you do have a shoulder and a wrist, and a neck and most importantly a skull. Sure you would focus on what isn't there, but that doesn't in any way change what is there.So even if that hand would be completly finnlike it still would make the fossil transitional
> -If I thought it would change your mind. I'd find all those fossils mentioned in the evogram and species by species give you a picture of every fossil what they found, highlight it's differences and simularities and walk you step by step trough it all. The problem that is a lot of work on account of someone who goes out of his way to not learn. These fossil and anatomical traits described are facts you can deny it, or claim you don't understand it but it doesn't change anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago.  The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006.  Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears.  Just crazy.  To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline.  Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik.  This period is called Romer's gap.
> 
> Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938.  We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story.  For those interested, here is the story.
> 
> 
> So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?
> 
> And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?
> 
> Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?
> 
> I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee.  Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together.  He does not think much information can be gleaned from it.  Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it.  Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape.  The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated.  I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi.  Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link.  Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information.  Why don't you go from there?  For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.
> 
> BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post.  Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
> -As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
> -I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. *Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? *Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils?  Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories?  Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"
> 
> So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx?  People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too.  And the Piltdown Man.
> 
> I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.
> 
> Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps?  Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?
> 
> As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy.  According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there.  I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines.  However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting.  Care to expound on Ardipithecus?
> 
> Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus.  He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha.  He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?).  I guess you weren't able to catch that.
> 
> Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You litteraly take the single sentence you think you can use in that article and run it right out of the stadium. I showed you the actual fossil, I challenge you to find another representation of Ardi. I don't know, but that picture doesn't look like any human I've ever seen. I'm not upset at best I am frustrated, because unlike you I don't try to hide the fact that science or me has all the answers. When I can't prove something I say so, when I make a wrong statement, I say so. And I'm talking to someone who does neither of those things, when I destroy your logic train which I have done dozens of times in the course of these conversations, you ignore or deny never face up. When I pose questions wich you can't answer, ( which is all of them), you don't accept the premise, deflect or ignore the question altogheter. When I don't answer a question usually because I answered it already. Or I don't feel that I want to broaden the scope of the conversation even more. You accuse me of deflecting,not taking into account that you tried to question about 8 other things I did adress. This whole Tiktaalik thing is perfect example. I put forth to you that the fact that they found Tiktaalik is proof of dating methods, geoligy and transitional fossils, you keep on getting stuck on whales and fins and other stuff. While you only have to look at the damn skull to see it is transitional. Throughout this entire conversation, we have worked by a different set of rules. I have followed mostly only what I can prove, not generally using what we hypothesise although my hypothesis have science behind it. You have basicly used, everything what you think speaks for you, regardless if it was provable or in most cases even actively disproven. You have given yourself the luxery of ignoring what you feel puts you in a tight spot. I have had to in numerous occasions go and look stuff up in order to answer some of your objections. taking up a considerable time of my day. I don't consider it time wasted since I've learned an insane ammount about branches of science and the scientific method itself. But unless you start playing in the same rules I play with. By wich I mean you don't say anything you can actually prove by using logic, I see no point in continuing.* If you want to continue I propose to ask one question the other side HAS to answer using logic and outside sources.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you saying now that science does not have the answers?  How can that be when evolution is a "fact?"  Are you agreeing with me that evolution is not fact and that there are many questions and controversies about it?  I think I have provided more facts to refute evolution.  One of my key points has been evolution does not answer the questions and this is one of the key questions.  Otherwise, let's continue to march forward.
> 
> I did no such thing of taking a sentence from Professor Lovejoy and running with it.  It's the conclusion he came to.  Why do I have to look up Ardi when we have the expert Prof. Lovejoy?  Here's his paper if it will make you happy -- "Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus Ramidus" by C. Owen Lovejoy .  If you can't read that, try here -- Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus | Science .
> 
> My link shows that the professor clarified his statements to the press.  This is official because it's on the Kent State U website.  I am giving you his statement that apes evolved from humans.  Why can't this be a new direction for evolution?  I'm not being facetious about this.  Here is another news article clarifying Professor Lovejoy's stance for the less scientific-minded  --  Study: Man did not evolve from apes .
> 
> I believe him when he says that Ardipitecus provides more information.  From his study, he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes.  You continue to claim that Ardi was an ape-human.  Where is your proof?  Just like the tiktaalik, Ardi is a recreation to favor evolution of man evolving from apes.
> 
> The other thing I want to bring up is to question the tree of life in this situation.  Here are the players.  I am referring to the ape creatures.  Evos like to call them apemen.
> 
> "Marvin Lubenow shows that the various alleged ‘apemen’ do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ‘ages,’ but overlap considerably. For example, the timespan of _Homo sapiens_ fossils contains the timespan of the fossils of _Homo erectus_, supposedly our ancestor. Also, when the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. The morphology overlaps too—the analysis of a number of characteristics indicates that _Homo ergaster_, _H. erectus_, _H. neanderthalensis_ as well as _H. heidelbergensis_, were most likely ‘racial’ variants of modern man, while _H. habilis_ and another specimen called _H. rudolfensis_ were just types of australopithecines. In fact, _H. habilis_ is now regarded as an invalid name, probably caused by assigning fragments of australopithecines and _H. erectus_ fossils into this ‘taxonomic waste bin
> 
> According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, current dating of Australopiths, _Ar. kaddaba_ and _Ar. ramidus_ coexisted; _A. afarensis_, _K. platyops_, _A. bahrelgazali_, and _A. africanus_ all coexisted; _P. aethiopicus_, _A. africanus_, _A. garhi_, _H. habilis_, and _H. rudolfensis_ all coexisted; and _A. sediba_, _P. boisei_, _H. rudolfensis_, and _H. habilis_ all coexisted as well.  A large number of hominins therefore coexisted and thus are 'offshoots' which could not have evolved from one another, resulting in a messy 'bush'. Rather than a nice orderly tree progression, they're living at the same times. Instead of having descended from one another, scientists now use the term offshoots, since as famous paleontologist Meave Leakey has noted, "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that _Homo erectus_ evolved from _Homo habilis_."
> 
> There are even more hominids found which I won't list here due to space.
> 
> What I am getting at is after Ardi, your tree of life has become a very messy "bush."  How do explain this?  Perhaps Professor Lovejoy has the better theory.
> 
> And I'm not getting stuck on fins, because I'm theorizing just like you about tiktaalik to a whale.  Why can't you accept that it's a valid question to research?  Furthermore, nobody here understands how tiktaalik is supposed to have become a tetrapod and then the tetrapod into a whale from you explanations.  Stick to the main point and please answer my questions.
Click to expand...

I think you are a bit confused here. What do you think Lovejoy did for you? Say It didn't evolve from chimpanzee like apes? There are different types of apes then chimpanzees. At no point does he claim that Ardi didn't evolve from apes.  In fact there is not a single scientist  who claims we evolved from chimpanzees. Scientist only claims that we have a common ancestor. At most Ardi just puts the age when that ancestor existed back. This is completly inconsistent whith your claims as a young earth creationist.This video features Lovejoy among other people, who worked on Ardi. They talk about millions of years not 6000. When they flesh out like they call it, Ardi looks like an ape, when they talk about it's foot they say how not human the fossil is. *So my question again is, how does this fossil help you in the slightest????* Btw if you know about evolution at all, you would know that, just because a species split into subspecies doesn't mean the original species died out. So species coexisting, with the parent species isn't rare.
Your hypothesis about whales suck. Again whales evolved 325 million years after Tiktaalik. It evolved in a completely different location. We found the different fossils, to establisch the evolution of whales and how they evolved makes Tiktaalik impossible as the ancestor. That where your questions, now you answer mine.
After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works


----------



## BreezeWood

forkup said:


> After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works




they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.


----------



## forkup

BreezeWood said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?
> 
> for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...
> 
> 
> Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...
> 
> maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

They built what they think was the boat. It's on dry land. I'm pretty sure more then 8 ppl where involved in building it. How many species does it fit. Is there room to carry food and water for a year. How do they handle waist disposal and how do they prevent this?Because of its extreme length and wood construction, _Wyoming_ tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). _Wyoming_ had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.
This is the biggest REAL wooden ship that ever existed and it's smaller then the size of the supposed ark. And like I said what we know of handling animals in zoo's we know that it takes many more people then 8 to take care of large numbers of zoo animals and that's on dry land. On the high seas more work is added to keep the boat seawhorty. In short there is no way that there where enough hours in the day for the 8 ppl to do it all.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main point of tiktaalik and coelacanth is the lobe-shaped fins of some bony fish evolving into limbs around 375 million years ago.  The reports of the tiktaalik being a "missing link" came in May 2006.  Just one month later Discover magazine said Panderichthys was the transitional form between fish and mammals because they claimed the ridiculous notion that it breathed through its ears.  Just crazy.  To make a long story short, true amphibians did not come to be until tens of millions of years later according to the evo timeline.  Since then, there has been no transitional form from tiktaalik.  This period is called Romer's gap.
> 
> Before tiktaalik, I will show you the coelacanth and how badly James L.B. Smith wanted evidence for it in 1938.  We already know how it turned out, but it's an interesting story.  For those interested, here is the story.
> 
> 
> So, where is the link of age and incorrect anatomical traits for the tiktaalik and the whale?
> 
> And where is the link backing up your other claims of the finlike hands?
> 
> Are you going to cover the lungfish which is supposed to be another transitional form, but it's still living?
> 
> I said we'll go back to Lucy because you will not believe it's a chimpanzee.  Professor Owen Lovejoy put Lucy's skeleton together.  He does not think much information can be gleaned from it.  Lucy is claimed to be Australopithecines, but is more chimpanzee with the limited information we get from it.  Lovejoy calls it chimpanzee-like ape.  The hip was cast to make it look more human as he stated.  I said most scientists think Lucy was a chimp because it came a million years later from Ardipithecus or Ardi.  Surely, you're not going to continue to claim Lucy was ape-human and is a transitional link.  Instead, he says Ardipithecus gives more information.  Why don't you go from there?  For those who read the Lovejoy link I posted, he thinks apes evolved from humans.
> 
> BTW it's really weird how you jump to conclusions from a link I post.  Why don't you keep an open mind and try to see the point I'm trying to make instead of seeing contradictions?
> 
> 
> 
> -See there you already say something ridiculous. There is no transitional fossil from fish to mamal, claiming any credible scientist said so is clear falsehood. Mamals evolved from reptilians. You know what I find amazing. I think I made the point now about 4 times, that I don't care what YOU feel is the main point taken from Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has parts of it's body plan that are not like fish, making it transitional. All the rest of these things you keep on bringing up are simply smoke and mirrors on your account. So you don't have to admit that that is the case. It's a game you play and it's getting old.
> -As to the whole whale thing. A couple a pages ago I posted a youtube video featuring the guy who found Tiktaalik, he recounts the find, walks you to the process and you'll find like I said that the finding was predicted, something according to you would be imposible because you claim you can't find rocks of millions of years old and you can't measure age of rocks period. This is real world proof your full of it again. The evolutionary age of whales is also well established. Furthermore the earliest whale acestors were found in Asia and they didn't geographicaly spread until they became fully aquatic. Just google whale evolution and you'l find those facts. As to the wrong anatomical traits. Tiktaalik has gills and probably lungs, whales have no sign of gills. If whales evolved from Tiktaalik then whales would have had gills too, since there would have been no evolutionary reason for them to have lost them. Pretty self evident. So Tiktaalik being the transitional form of whales, doesn't work, anatomical, geographical and in time. And only, like I said someone who goes out of his way not to learn would have trouble seeing it.
> -I don't keep a open mind? That's really ironic James coming from you. I showed you Ardi, that skull I showed was the fossil. You can reconstruct a face from it's skull and that's what they did, hence picture number 2. The link you provided sais the professor thinks this is the common ancester to humans. *Now explain to me, how does that link helps your case that humans didn't evolve from apes? *Now I'm gonna try something that is probably useless, since I'm gonna try to put in nuance, something I suspect you'll use and try to make sound like confusedness. There are 2 concepts you use that are not the same and you make it sound like they are. The first is transitional fossil. I gave you the defenition. It's nothing more then a fossil that represents traits of 2 classes of animals. It represents evolutionary experimantation. The second is missing link. A missing link is the direct evolutionary decendant from 1 species trough he next. A missing link will by defenition be a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is not necessarily a missing link. Proving something is a missing link is hard. Evolution is a tree and proving that this exact creature gave rise to to another creature hundreds of steps further down the line is not easy, because you have to be able to account for all the steps. The fossil record is not that complete. You can however establish the direction evolution was going at a certain time period. that's why you will find so many homonids, each of these species is a transitional form but only 1 at each age will lead to us. That doesn't mean we are not related. We are more closely related to these homonids then we are to chimpansees but most of them will not be the species that sired us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're upset because I said there are no transitional fossils?  Upset because I am criticizing the humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs theories?  Is that because I am criticizing your "faith?"
> 
> So, you believe the tiktaalik and archaeopteryx?  People, at one time, believed the sun revolved around the earth, too.  And the Piltdown Man.
> 
> I won't try to dissuade you then, but consider the points I made about coelacanth and the OSU study on archaeopteryx.
> 
> Whales do not have gills (they have a blowhole and lungs), but why couldn't they have evolved that way like your ancestors to the tiktaalik, i.e. through the intermediate steps?  Why do they get lungs while it's preposterous for intermediaries (none found) to a whale to have lungs?
> 
> As for the rest, let's agree to move past Lucy.  According to Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, there isn't enough info there.  I say chimp and you say chimpanzee-like ape or Australopithecines.  However, Ardi, which came 100 million years earlier is interesting.  Care to expound on Ardipithecus?
> 
> Professor Lovejoy also helped reconstruct Ardipithecus.  He does not think humans descended from chimpanzee-like apes which I agree with ha ha.  He thinks that apes descended from humans -- a new direction for evolution (?).  I guess you weren't able to catch that.
> 
> Did apes descend from us? | Toronto Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You litteraly take the single sentence you think you can use in that article and run it right out of the stadium. I showed you the actual fossil, I challenge you to find another representation of Ardi. I don't know, but that picture doesn't look like any human I've ever seen. I'm not upset at best I am frustrated, because unlike you I don't try to hide the fact that science or me has all the answers. When I can't prove something I say so, when I make a wrong statement, I say so. And I'm talking to someone who does neither of those things, when I destroy your logic train which I have done dozens of times in the course of these conversations, you ignore or deny never face up. When I pose questions wich you can't answer, ( which is all of them), you don't accept the premise, deflect or ignore the question altogheter. When I don't answer a question usually because I answered it already. Or I don't feel that I want to broaden the scope of the conversation even more. You accuse me of deflecting,not taking into account that you tried to question about 8 other things I did adress. This whole Tiktaalik thing is perfect example. I put forth to you that the fact that they found Tiktaalik is proof of dating methods, geoligy and transitional fossils, you keep on getting stuck on whales and fins and other stuff. While you only have to look at the damn skull to see it is transitional. Throughout this entire conversation, we have worked by a different set of rules. I have followed mostly only what I can prove, not generally using what we hypothesise although my hypothesis have science behind it. You have basicly used, everything what you think speaks for you, regardless if it was provable or in most cases even actively disproven. You have given yourself the luxery of ignoring what you feel puts you in a tight spot. I have had to in numerous occasions go and look stuff up in order to answer some of your objections. taking up a considerable time of my day. I don't consider it time wasted since I've learned an insane ammount about branches of science and the scientific method itself. But unless you start playing in the same rules I play with. By wich I mean you don't say anything you can actually prove by using logic, I see no point in continuing.* If you want to continue I propose to ask one question the other side HAS to answer using logic and outside sources.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you saying now that science does not have the answers?  How can that be when evolution is a "fact?"  Are you agreeing with me that evolution is not fact and that there are many questions and controversies about it?  I think I have provided more facts to refute evolution.  One of my key points has been evolution does not answer the questions and this is one of the key questions.  Otherwise, let's continue to march forward.
> 
> I did no such thing of taking a sentence from Professor Lovejoy and running with it.  It's the conclusion he came to.  Why do I have to look up Ardi when we have the expert Prof. Lovejoy?  Here's his paper if it will make you happy -- "Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus Ramidus" by C. Owen Lovejoy .  If you can't read that, try here -- Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus | Science .
> 
> My link shows that the professor clarified his statements to the press.  This is official because it's on the Kent State U website.  I am giving you his statement that apes evolved from humans.  Why can't this be a new direction for evolution?  I'm not being facetious about this.  Here is another news article clarifying Professor Lovejoy's stance for the less scientific-minded  --  Study: Man did not evolve from apes .
> 
> I believe him when he says that Ardipitecus provides more information.  From his study, he concluded that humans did not evolve from chimpanzee-like apes.  You continue to claim that Ardi was an ape-human.  Where is your proof?  Just like the tiktaalik, Ardi is a recreation to favor evolution of man evolving from apes.
> 
> The other thing I want to bring up is to question the tree of life in this situation.  Here are the players.  I am referring to the ape creatures.  Evos like to call them apemen.
> 
> "Marvin Lubenow shows that the various alleged ‘apemen’ do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ‘ages,’ but overlap considerably. For example, the timespan of _Homo sapiens_ fossils contains the timespan of the fossils of _Homo erectus_, supposedly our ancestor. Also, when the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. The morphology overlaps too—the analysis of a number of characteristics indicates that _Homo ergaster_, _H. erectus_, _H. neanderthalensis_ as well as _H. heidelbergensis_, were most likely ‘racial’ variants of modern man, while _H. habilis_ and another specimen called _H. rudolfensis_ were just types of australopithecines. In fact, _H. habilis_ is now regarded as an invalid name, probably caused by assigning fragments of australopithecines and _H. erectus_ fossils into this ‘taxonomic waste bin
> 
> According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, current dating of Australopiths, _Ar. kaddaba_ and _Ar. ramidus_ coexisted; _A. afarensis_, _K. platyops_, _A. bahrelgazali_, and _A. africanus_ all coexisted; _P. aethiopicus_, _A. africanus_, _A. garhi_, _H. habilis_, and _H. rudolfensis_ all coexisted; and _A. sediba_, _P. boisei_, _H. rudolfensis_, and _H. habilis_ all coexisted as well.  A large number of hominins therefore coexisted and thus are 'offshoots' which could not have evolved from one another, resulting in a messy 'bush'. Rather than a nice orderly tree progression, they're living at the same times. Instead of having descended from one another, scientists now use the term offshoots, since as famous paleontologist Meave Leakey has noted, "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that _Homo erectus_ evolved from _Homo habilis_."
> 
> There are even more hominids found which I won't list here due to space.
> 
> What I am getting at is after Ardi, your tree of life has become a very messy "bush."  How do explain this?  Perhaps Professor Lovejoy has the better theory.
> 
> And I'm not getting stuck on fins, because I'm theorizing just like you about tiktaalik to a whale.  Why can't you accept that it's a valid question to research?  Furthermore, nobody here understands how tiktaalik is supposed to have become a tetrapod and then the tetrapod into a whale from you explanations.  Stick to the main point and please answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are a bit confused here. What do you think Lovejoy did for you? Say It didn't evolve from chimpanzee like apes? There are different types of apes then chimpanzees. At no point does he claim that Ardi didn't evolve from apes.  In fact there is not a single scientist  who claims we evolved from chimpanzees. Scientist only claims that we have a common ancestor. At most Ardi just puts the age when that ancestor existed back. This is completly inconsistent whith your claims as a young earth creationist.This video features Lovejoy among other people, who worked on Ardi. They talk about millions of years not 6000. When they flesh out like they call it, Ardi looks like an ape, when they talk about it's foot they say how not human the fossil is. *So my question again is, how does this fossil help you in the slightest????* Btw if you know about evolution at all, you would know that, just because a species split into subspecies doesn't mean the original species died out. So species coexisting, with the parent species isn't rare.
> Your hypothesis about whales suck. Again whales evolved 325 million years after Tiktaalik. It evolved in a completely different location. We found the different fossils, to establisch the evolution of whales and how they evolved makes Tiktaalik impossible as the ancestor. That where your questions, now you answer mine.
> After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works
Click to expand...


My answers in *blue*.  I think you are just glossing over what I presented and neglected to answer my questions which I'll post again below.  *One is Lucy was just a 3' tall chimp.* There wasn't enough information there to claim "apeman."  If you still want to make a case for Lucy, we can get into the man who found it, Don Johanson.  Next, *Ardi which came 100 million years before Lucy and it provides more information.  It makes Lucy obsolete.  *I'll look over your video, but suspect it will be more fitting the facts to the theory and doctoring the evidence to make it more like an apeman.  *The evos have been caught several times already as my apes-to-man infograph pointed out.*

I have been answering your question all along, but you apparently cannot accept the truth or the criticisms of evolution.  *Evolution does not answer all the questions.  It is you and the evolutionists making these far-out claims such as humans are fish and birds are dinosaurs.  It is why we are delving in-depth to the evolution beginnings.  It is why they are full of contradictions.*

*In a nutshell, here is what the creation scientists concluded about the so-called apemen,*
"There are tremendous morphological distinctions between apes and mankind. These are predominantly due to the differences in cognitive ability (skull size), and the skeletal-muscular design permitting bipedal movement and balance in humans.

Most creationists argue that the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of fossil evidence. Three approaches may account for all of the attempts by evolutionists to fill the unbridged gap between apes and men with fossil apemen.

*1.* Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”
*2.* Emphasize certain human-like qualities of fossilized ape bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more human-like.
*3.* Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more apelike.[2]
Malcolm Bowden echoes this view:

“ It must be emphasised that where there is sufficient evidence, ALL skulls can be identified as being either ape or human. There are NO other classes, for they are all the imaginings of the evolutionary paleaoanthropologists who insist on concocting a string of links between man and apes. In order to fill this enormous gap, any ape skull is greatly enlarged and the fossil's 'human' features exaggerated (e.g. Pekin man and 'Lucy'), whilst human skulls are decreased and their 'ape' features are similarly emphasised (e.g. 1470 Man).”

To distinguish fossil apes from humans, Malcolm Bowden recommends using the following general characteristics. For a fossil skull to be identified as human it should have a fairly large brain capacity - over 1,000 cc's, and a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose. Apes, by contrast, have a smaller brain capacity and a protruding muzzle. However, he warns that fossils and reconstructions are often interpreted and distorted to meet evolutionary expectations. It can be frequently found that ape skulls are 'adjusted' to look more human, and human skulls often rebuilt to emphasize 'ape-like' features.

My whales hypothesis just goes to show that you are just parroting what the evos tell you, and your answer lacks depth.  You'll have to explain it further to me and the people here.  It does invole Tiktaalik because *how did it go from Tiktaalik to tetrapod?  What happened after that?  Please explain using the infographs I posted from evolution.berkeley.edu.*  Furthermore, *no reply to the lungfish (again part of the inforgraph)* which you claim is a transitional form and I pointed out it's still living?  That already shows that the millions of years old is wrong.

Next, you're bringing up Noah's Flood.  For that, we have Ark Encounter now which opened July 7th.  Why not let them answer it?  I can point you to another website that is very detailed, but you're not going to read it.  The key point about Noah is after the Flood, this is where the primitive humans begin to show up.  Not apemen.  We went from ancient humans that live 900 years to humans that live 120.  Remember, all the different hominids I posted in the post before this one?  This theory explains all of them.  Evolution can't explain them all because many existed at the same time, so there is not a pattern of evolution.  In fact, that's what I have been pointing out all along.  *There is no pattern of evolution.  Just evo scientists shaping the evidence to fit their theories.  *If evolution was a fact, *how can anyone use tiktaalik to tetrapod?  *Most people do not know tiktaalik.  The only thing I've see is the fish with feet logo ha ha.  If it was a fact, its use would be more widespread like Genesis which almost everyone here is familiar with even though they may not agree.  The Bible has sold over 5 billion copies and it is the best selling *non-fiction* book per Guinness Book of World Records.

So, I have been answering your questions all along.  Perhaps, you just missed the answers or just became too emotional since it questions and starts to destroy your worldview with cogent arguments and facts to which evolutionists have no reply.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?
> 
> for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...
> 
> 
> Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...
> 
> maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha.  The boat did not have to go anywhere.  Most people know this.  God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible.  And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah.  He had 120 years to build it.  He was around 500 when he started.  Now wrap your minds around that.  Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.  Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up.  They were much healthier.  The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?
> 
> for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...
> 
> 
> Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...
> 
> maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha.  The boat did not have to go anywhere.  Most people know this.  God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible.  And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah.  He had 120 years to build it.  He was around 500 when he started.  Now wrap your minds around that.  Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.  Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up.  They were much healthier.  The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
Click to expand...

I won't answer your wrong assumptions until you can provide a workable model for the objections I put out to the ark, building it was only 1, and by no means my largest problem.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?
> 
> for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...
> 
> 
> Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...
> 
> maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha.  The boat did not have to go anywhere.  Most people know this.  God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible.  And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah.  He had 120 years to build it.  He was around 500 when he started.  Now wrap your minds around that.  Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.  Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up.  They were much healthier.  The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
Click to expand...

.
_*Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.*_



james bond said:


> your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.



_*The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.*_

you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?

where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.




james bond said:


> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.










BreezeWood said:


> I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation





BreezeWood said:


> and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?




I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.

neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.

genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.

.


----------



## dpr112yme

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


Asking people such as Steven Hawking and other scientists about what they think would be a good start, at least for me.  Steven Hawking is rather very 'spaced-minded', more so than myself so I would have to accept that he would know more and has thought more about space than myself.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

dpr112yme said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking people such as Steven Hawking and other scientists about what they think would be a good start, at least for me.  Steven Hawking is rather very 'spaced-minded', more so than myself so I would have to accept that he would know more and has thought more about space than myself.
Click to expand...







Stephen Hawking’s Three Arguments Against God | The Confident Christian

....In his critique of Hawking’s position, science journalist Tim Radford recognizes this inconsistency and writes: “The laws of quantum and relativistic physics represent things to be wondered at but widely accepted: just like biblical miracles. M-theory invokes something different: a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and nowhere. This force cannot be identified by instruments or examined by comprehensible mathematical prediction, and yet it contains all possibilities. It incorporates omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, and it's a big mystery. Remind you of Anybody?”

***************************************************************************************************************************

Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'

Stephen Hawking has since published a rebuttal to his critics, insisting that “Intelligent design” doesn’t in any way prove that God exists, but only that a “God-like force” played a role in the creation of our Universe, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

***************************************************************************************************************************

He appears to flip-flop on the subject...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?
> 
> for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...
> 
> 
> Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...
> 
> maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha.  The boat did not have to go anywhere.  Most people know this.  God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible.  And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah.  He had 120 years to build it.  He was around 500 when he started.  Now wrap your minds around that.  Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.  Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up.  They were much healthier.  The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.*_
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.*_
> 
> you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?
> 
> where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.
> 
> neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.
> 
> genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


A rainbow over the Ark Encounter






to remind us of God's promise.

It was built to mark an important period of our lives.

That's the difference between you and I.  I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu, ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.


----------



## james bond

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.


----------



## james bond

Here's another prehistoric man contradiction to evolution.

Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million.  All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts.  By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies.  If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts).  Yet only a few thousand have been found.  This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.  There aren't enough Stone Age skeletons.

Another point for a young Earth?


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?
> 
> for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...
> 
> 
> Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...
> 
> maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha.  The boat did not have to go anywhere.  Most people know this.  God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible.  And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah.  He had 120 years to build it.  He was around 500 when he started.  Now wrap your minds around that.  Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.  Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up.  They were much healthier.  The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.*_
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.*_
> 
> you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?
> 
> where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.
> 
> neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.
> 
> genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rainbow over the Ark Encounter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to remind us of God's promise.
> 
> It was built to mark an important period of our lives.
> 
> That's the difference between you and I.  I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu, ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu ...



metamorphosis is not complexity and beauty  .




james bond said:


> ... ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.





BreezeWood said:


> neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.



my examples have all been provable and real life, you simply are unable to respond to their factual representations.





james bond said:


> to remind us of God's promise.





james bond said:


> Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.





BreezeWood said:


> you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise christian, why is that ?



_*
Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier*_


you do not understand the parable of Noah as the religion set forth from that time foreword The Triumph of Good vs Evil. there is no promise only a certainty for an outcome without interruption. praising those before Noah is not for you a promising contribution and is why those like you must be corrected for the good of humanity.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.





james bond said:


> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.


So you gave me exactly 0 answers.* I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas)*, just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about  Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you  came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look
none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?
> 
> for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...
> 
> 
> Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...
> 
> maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha.  The boat did not have to go anywhere.  Most people know this.  God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible.  And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah.  He had 120 years to build it.  He was around 500 when he started.  Now wrap your minds around that.  Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.  Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up.  They were much healthier.  The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.*_
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.*_
> 
> you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?
> 
> where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.
> 
> neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.
> 
> genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rainbow over the Ark Encounter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to remind us of God's promise.
> 
> It was built to mark an important period of our lives.
> 
> That's the difference between you and I.  I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu, ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> metamorphosis is not complexity and beauty  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my examples have all been provable and real life, you simply are unable to respond to their factual representations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> to remind us of God's promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise christian, why is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier*_
> 
> 
> you do not understand the parable of Noah as the religion set forth from that time foreword The Triumph of Good vs Evil. there is no promise only a certainty for an outcome without interruption. praising those before Noah is not for you a promising contribution and is why those like you must be corrected for the good of humanity.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  You're still here?

Metamorphosis?  Who discovered that?  An atheist scientist?  Frick no.  Gregor Mendel, a Christian scientist.  The Christian DNA of Modern Genetics

In fact, Christian or religious scientists have contributed more to the history of humankind than atheist ones.  Thus, all those atheists here who thought Christians do not do science are WRONG.

Then, you missed the beauty of the rainbow.





Sir Isaac Newton, Christian scientist

"The technical details of rainbow formation were first analyzed by Isaac Newton in 1665. His brilliant optics work concerning reflection and refraction certainly does not detract from the beauty and promise of the rainbow. On the contrary, Newton's scientific insights show the marvelous complexity of creation. The rainbow is a gracious pledge that God will not destroy the Earth a second time with a worldwide flood (Genesis 9:11-17): 
     “I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of a covenant between me and the Earth… Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.” (Genesis 9:13,15).

Read more at: RAINBOWS - What causes a rainbow? • Kid Explorers • ChristianAnswers.Net


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you gave me exactly 0 answers.* I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas)*, just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about  Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you  came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look
> none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?
Click to expand...


I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers.  Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis?  There were movies made of the story.  History channel provides a good one.  I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode.  BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.


Again, you are just blabbering on and *NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above*.  You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type. 

The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years.  It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article.  Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time?  I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking.  In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia.  You haven't sourced anybody and what they did.  Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.

*Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof?  You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.*

*Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus?*  We can do that.  That wipes out 1 million years before?  Ardi was not bipidal then?

I think Lovejoy stands by what he says.  He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion.  Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23

22 Johanson, Donald. _Nova,_ In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.

23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. _Science News_ 122, no. 8:116.

The NOVA program was from 1997.  *When is your video from? * That's only part of it.  The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.

Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US.  *Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists?*  I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman.  More shenanigans?

*What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha?*  Got anything to say about that?

The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha.  We can discuss this, too.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?
> 
> for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...
> 
> 
> Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...
> 
> maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha.  The boat did not have to go anywhere.  Most people know this.  God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible.  And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah.  He had 120 years to build it.  He was around 500 when he started.  Now wrap your minds around that.  Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.  Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up.  They were much healthier.  The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.*_
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> your answers just show *ignorance* ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.*_
> 
> you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?
> 
> where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.
> 
> neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.
> 
> genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A rainbow over the Ark Encounter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to remind us of God's promise.
> 
> It was built to mark an important period of our lives.
> 
> That's the difference between you and I.  I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu, ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> metamorphosis is not complexity and beauty  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my examples have all been provable and real life, you simply are unable to respond to their factual representations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> to remind us of God's promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise christian, why is that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier*_
> 
> 
> you do not understand the parable of Noah as the religion set forth from that time foreword The Triumph of Good vs Evil. there is no promise only a certainty for an outcome without interruption. praising those before Noah is not for you a promising contribution and is why those like you must be corrected for the good of humanity.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You're still here?
> 
> Metamorphosis?  Who discovered that?  An atheist scientist?  Frick no.  Gregor Mendel, a Christian scientist.  The Christian DNA of Modern Genetics
> 
> In fact, Christian or religious scientists have contributed more to the history of humankind than atheist ones.  Thus, all those atheists here who thought Christians do not do science are WRONG.
> 
> Then, you missed the beauty of the rainbow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton, Christian scientist
> 
> "The technical details of rainbow formation were first analyzed by Isaac Newton in 1665. His brilliant optics work concerning reflection and refraction certainly does not detract from the beauty and promise of the rainbow. On the contrary, Newton's scientific insights show the marvelous complexity of creation. The rainbow is a gracious pledge that God will not destroy the Earth a second time with a worldwide flood (Genesis 9:11-17):
> “I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of a covenant between me and the Earth… Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.” (Genesis 9:13,15).
> 
> Read more at: RAINBOWS - What causes a rainbow? • Kid Explorers • ChristianAnswers.Net
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Metamorphosis? Who discovered that? An atheist scientist? Frick no. Gregor Mendel, a Christian scientist.









the above has nothing to do with Mendel, Bond your good at dodging when there is no alternative to a real life example and you have no answers for your creationist hyperbole ... all beings have the same adaptability derived from a similar origin, their Spirits given as the same, no different than humanity by the Almighty.




james bond said:


> The rainbow is a gracious pledge that God will not destroy the Earth a second time with a worldwide flood (Genesis 9:11-17):





BreezeWood said:


> you do not understand the parable of Noah as the religion set forth from that time foreword The Triumph of Good vs Evil.




your christianity does not fulfill the parable of Noah, the true religion as prescribed by the Almighty for humanities redemption ...




james bond said:


> Ha ha. You're still here?




  . what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?

.


----------



## james bond

I'll just let the scientific posts I started about tree rings and not enough Stone Age fossils go for now.

I found out today there was a Lucy exhibit put on by Ethiopia, Johanson and the Pacific Science Center at Seattle in 2009.  I just want to point out the difference between its success and the Creation Museum which has become a top-notch family attraction in the Midwest US.

Here's the headline, "No Love for Lucy" (the news article has been deleted).  "Who loves Lucy? Far fewer people than a Seattle science center hoped when officials paid millions to show the fossil remains of one of the earliest known human ancestors.

*Halfway through the five-month exhibit, the Pacific Science Center faces a half-million-dollar loss resulting in layoffs of 8 percent of the staff, furloughs and a wage freeze*, President Bryce Seidl said Friday."

Other museums withdrew because of the cost.  Lucy will likely remain in Ethiopia forever ha ha.

OTOH the Creation Museum has become a success and a premier family destination.  Add to it the Ark Encounter and it sounds like both will be hits.


"We didn’t read any stories about museums losing money when they paid Egypt a pharaoh’s ransom to show King Tut’s artifacts.  Lots of people (including me) went to the Pacific Science Center to see the Titanic artifacts.  Attendance figures (and the resulting income) represent reality.  How people spend their money is a better indication of what people believe than mere words.  *People aren’t fascinated by the evolution myth any more.* That’s why they didn’t go."


----------



## james bond

So, it appears that the evolutionists here have been FOOLED by the optical illusion of evolution.  They believe in a science (theories) based on political motivations.  Here's a good example of what I mean.






The colors of the squares A and B are both the same color despite the "illusion."


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you gave me exactly 0 answers.* I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas)*, just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about  Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you  came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look
> none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers.  Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis?  There were movies made of the story.  History channel provides a good one.  I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode.  BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.
> 
> 
> Again, you are just blabbering on and *NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above*.  You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.
> 
> The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years.  It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article.  Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time?  I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking.  In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia.  You haven't sourced anybody and what they did.  Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.
> 
> *Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof?  You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.*
> 
> *Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus?*  We can do that.  That wipes out 1 million years before?  Ardi was not bipidal then?
> 
> I think Lovejoy stands by what he says.  He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion.  Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23
> 
> 22 Johanson, Donald. _Nova,_ In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.
> 
> 23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. _Science News_ 122, no. 8:116.
> 
> The NOVA program was from 1997.  *When is your video from? * That's only part of it.  The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.
> 
> Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US.  *Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists?*  I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman.  More shenanigans?
> 
> *What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha?*  Got anything to say about that?
> 
> The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha.  We can discuss this, too.
Click to expand...

I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal.  I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you gave me exactly 0 answers.* I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas)*, just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about  Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you  came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look
> none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers.  Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis?  There were movies made of the story.  History channel provides a good one.  I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode.  BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.
> 
> 
> Again, you are just blabbering on and *NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above*.  You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.
> 
> The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years.  It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article.  Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time?  I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking.  In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia.  You haven't sourced anybody and what they did.  Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.
> 
> *Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof?  You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.*
> 
> *Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus?*  We can do that.  That wipes out 1 million years before?  Ardi was not bipidal then?
> 
> I think Lovejoy stands by what he says.  He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion.  Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23
> 
> 22 Johanson, Donald. _Nova,_ In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.
> 
> 23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. _Science News_ 122, no. 8:116.
> 
> The NOVA program was from 1997.  *When is your video from? * That's only part of it.  The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.
> 
> Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US.  *Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists?*  I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman.  More shenanigans?
> 
> *What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha?*  Got anything to say about that?
> 
> The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha.  We can discuss this, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal.  I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.
Click to expand...



You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.

Again, you avoid my questions.  Is it because you *LOST* again and are wrong again?  I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus.  Face it, Lucy was a *CHIMPANZEE*.  Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore.  Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore?  That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually *WRONG*.  This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.

Here is the *TRUTH* right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.


Early humans were around the same time as Lucy.  Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans.  Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like.  That is so whack.  When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.

What about the Stone Age man skeletons?  They buried the deceased with artifacts.  Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.

On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline.  You have no explanation for this.

It's time to move on, forkup.


----------



## forkup

Y


james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you gave me exactly 0 answers.* I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas)*, just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about  Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you  came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look
> none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers.  Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis?  There were movies made of the story.  History channel provides a good one.  I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode.  BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.
> 
> 
> Again, you are just blabbering on and *NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above*.  You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.
> 
> The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years.  It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article.  Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time?  I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking.  In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia.  You haven't sourced anybody and what they did.  Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.
> 
> *Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof?  You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.*
> 
> *Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus?*  We can do that.  That wipes out 1 million years before?  Ardi was not bipidal then?
> 
> I think Lovejoy stands by what he says.  He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion.  Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23
> 
> 22 Johanson, Donald. _Nova,_ In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.
> 
> 23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. _Science News_ 122, no. 8:116.
> 
> The NOVA program was from 1997.  *When is your video from? * That's only part of it.  The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.
> 
> Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US.  *Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists?*  I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman.  More shenanigans?
> 
> *What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha?*  Got anything to say about that?
> 
> The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha.  We can discuss this, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal.  I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.
> 
> Again, you avoid my questions.  Is it because you *LOST* again and are wrong again?  I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus.  Face it, Lucy was a *CHIMPANZEE*.  Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore.  Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore?  That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually *WRONG*.  This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.
> 
> Here is the *TRUTH* right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.
> 
> 
> Early humans were around the same time as Lucy.  Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans.  Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like.  That is so whack.  When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.
> 
> What about the Stone Age man skeletons?  They buried the deceased with artifacts.  Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.
> 
> On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline.  You have no explanation for this.
> 
> It's time to move on, forkup.
Click to expand...

You know James, I strongly suggest you watch your own video and listen carefully. Lovejoy talks about the fact that Ardi, is probably the common ancestor for homononids and chimpansees. Lucy he classifies in the homonid camp, based on the fact she is bipedal and is a member of a species were the males hasn't got the longer teeth, common in chimpansees and all modern apes, the video I posted talks about another Austrolopiticus Lovejoy worked on a male btw so its not conjecture. I get you hear only what you want to hear but it's obvious. In the end he sais "Darwin would be estatic". And before you say it. He also sais Darwin had the order evolutionary traits appeared, wrong, but only because Darwin only had 1 other homonid fossil (Neathertall), so again, I'm completely baffled why you would use a source that completely and utterly supports Darwin's vision on us evolving from apes. You just get stuck on the old mind trick Creastionist use (Darwin claims we evolved from chimpansees). Since the only thing Darwin claimed is that we had a common ancestor and Lovejoy is trying to make a case for Ardi being it. Oh and btw Lovejoy also completely nullifies your second video. That guy talks about that theirs nothing found before Autrolopitecus and tries to cast doubt on Lucy. While Lovejoy has Ardi wich is a million years older and my video also talks about another austrolopiticus that has been found so you lose twice.This is that video again, listen very carefully to both videos and then explain to me why you feel Lovejoy is usefull for you?


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> Y
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions.  That's a full-sized workable model.  Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.
> 
> I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx.  How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land?  Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.
> 
> I think you're stuck, so will move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you gave me exactly 0 answers.* I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas)*, just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about  Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you  came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look
> none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers.  Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis?  There were movies made of the story.  History channel provides a good one.  I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode.  BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.
> 
> 
> Again, you are just blabbering on and *NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above*.  You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.
> 
> The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years.  It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article.  Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time?  I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking.  In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia.  You haven't sourced anybody and what they did.  Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.
> 
> *Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof?  You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.*
> 
> *Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus?*  We can do that.  That wipes out 1 million years before?  Ardi was not bipidal then?
> 
> I think Lovejoy stands by what he says.  He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion.  Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23
> 
> 22 Johanson, Donald. _Nova,_ In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.
> 
> 23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. _Science News_ 122, no. 8:116.
> 
> The NOVA program was from 1997.  *When is your video from? * That's only part of it.  The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.
> 
> Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US.  *Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists?*  I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman.  More shenanigans?
> 
> *What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha?*  Got anything to say about that?
> 
> The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha.  We can discuss this, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal.  I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.
> 
> Again, you avoid my questions.  Is it because you *LOST* again and are wrong again?  I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus.  Face it, Lucy was a *CHIMPANZEE*.  Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore.  Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore?  That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually *WRONG*.  This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.
> 
> Here is the *TRUTH* right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.
> 
> 
> Early humans were around the same time as Lucy.  Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans.  Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like.  That is so whack.  When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.
> 
> What about the Stone Age man skeletons?  They buried the deceased with artifacts.  Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.
> 
> On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline.  You have no explanation for this.
> 
> It's time to move on, forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know James, I strongly suggest you watch your own video and listen carefully. Lovejoy talks about the fact that Ardi, is probably the common ancestor for homononids and chimpansees. Lucy he classifies in the homonid camp, based on the fact she is bipedal and is a member of a species were the males hasn't got the longer teeth, common in chimpansees and all modern apes, the video I posted talks about another Austrolopiticus Lovejoy worked on a male btw so its not conjecture. I get you hear only what you want to hear but it's obvious. In the end he sais "Darwin would be estatic". And before you say it. He also sais Darwin had the order evolutionary traits appeared, wrong, but only because Darwin only had 1 other homonid fossil (Neathertall), so again, I'm completely baffled why you would use a source that completely and utterly supports Darwin's vision on us evolving from apes. You just get stuck on the old mind trick Creastionist use (Darwin claims we evolved from chimpansees). Since the only thing Darwin claimed is that we had a common ancestor and Lovejoy is trying to make a case for Ardi being it. Oh and btw Lovejoy also completely nullifies your second video. That guy talks about that theirs nothing found before Autrolopitecus and tries to cast doubt on Lucy. While Lovejoy has Ardi wich is a million years older and my video also talks about another austrolopiticus that has been found so you lose twice.This is that video again, listen very carefully to both videos and then explain to me why you feel Lovejoy is usefull for you?
Click to expand...


Lovejoy believes it's a chimpanzee-like ape.  Besides, there are others who think it's a chimpanzee.  Most people do not care about Lucy anymore.  They do not believe it.  You can keep believing "she's" an apeman ha ha.  So, where are the other apemen?  Instead, I showed that early humans and chimpanzees and apes lived together.  Did you forget the footprints found 1000 miles away from Lucy?  And I've posted about the australopithecines already.

"*Australopithecines* include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.

The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone.  However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs.  They also have curved fingers and long curved toes.  Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. The article of Mark Collard and Leislie Aiello in Nature Magazine reports "good evidence from Lucy's hand-bones that her species "knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas still do today.  It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees.  However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other." 

Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". _Nature_ *404* (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836


----------



## james bond

How about continuing our discussion of mutations, forkup?  Do you still think they are beneficial?  Tobacco is a GMO product today.  The mutation has been patented.  People are more likely to get cancer and they may have their cells mutated by smoking 15 cigarettes.

Smoking 15 cigarettes harms your DNA, finds cancer study


----------



## james bond

>>           
  . what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?<<

Egg, larva, pupa and adult.

Knock yerself out, BreezeWood.  I enjoy watching you dig a hole presumably to bury yourself in.

Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> >>
> . what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?<<
> 
> Egg, larva, pupa and adult.
> 
> Knock yerself out, BreezeWood.  I enjoy watching you dig a hole presumably to bury yourself in.
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover


.


james bond said:


> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover




been busy, not enough time to log into your site though not my example an equally compelling demonstration from a common origin an entirely personalized regeneration of species that equal if not surpas the simpler reproductive processes of other beings including humans.




BreezeWood said:


> what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?



... you posted the question but did not answer it, and let me be remindful this is a religious forum.  the contrasts you and I have for the written vs spoken similar religion your reference as christianity can also explain the variances in answers you block your mind from in consideration at the expense of a resultant conclusion.

... does _even_ your site reflect the written biblical genesis, you may think you are not buried but in fact spinning wheels only digs you deeper.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you gave me exactly 0 answers.* I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas)*, just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about  Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you  came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look
> none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers.  Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis?  There were movies made of the story.  History channel provides a good one.  I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode.  BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.
> 
> 
> Again, you are just blabbering on and *NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above*.  You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.
> 
> The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years.  It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article.  Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time?  I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking.  In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia.  You haven't sourced anybody and what they did.  Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.
> 
> *Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof?  You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.*
> 
> *Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus?*  We can do that.  That wipes out 1 million years before?  Ardi was not bipidal then?
> 
> I think Lovejoy stands by what he says.  He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion.  Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23
> 
> 22 Johanson, Donald. _Nova,_ In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.
> 
> 23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. _Science News_ 122, no. 8:116.
> 
> The NOVA program was from 1997.  *When is your video from? * That's only part of it.  The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.
> 
> Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US.  *Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists?*  I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman.  More shenanigans?
> 
> *What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha?*  Got anything to say about that?
> 
> The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha.  We can discuss this, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal.  I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.
> 
> Again, you avoid my questions.  Is it because you *LOST* again and are wrong again?  I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus.  Face it, Lucy was a *CHIMPANZEE*.  Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore.  Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore?  That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually *WRONG*.  This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.
> 
> Here is the *TRUTH* right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.
> 
> 
> Early humans were around the same time as Lucy.  Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans.  Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like.  That is so whack.  When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.
> 
> What about the Stone Age man skeletons?  They buried the deceased with artifacts.  Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.
> 
> On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline.  You have no explanation for this.
> 
> It's time to move on, forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know James, I strongly suggest you watch your own video and listen carefully. Lovejoy talks about the fact that Ardi, is probably the common ancestor for homononids and chimpansees. Lucy he classifies in the homonid camp, based on the fact she is bipedal and is a member of a species were the males hasn't got the longer teeth, common in chimpansees and all modern apes, the video I posted talks about another Austrolopiticus Lovejoy worked on a male btw so its not conjecture. I get you hear only what you want to hear but it's obvious. In the end he sais "Darwin would be estatic". And before you say it. He also sais Darwin had the order evolutionary traits appeared, wrong, but only because Darwin only had 1 other homonid fossil (Neathertall), so again, I'm completely baffled why you would use a source that completely and utterly supports Darwin's vision on us evolving from apes. You just get stuck on the old mind trick Creastionist use (Darwin claims we evolved from chimpansees). Since the only thing Darwin claimed is that we had a common ancestor and Lovejoy is trying to make a case for Ardi being it. Oh and btw Lovejoy also completely nullifies your second video. That guy talks about that theirs nothing found before Autrolopitecus and tries to cast doubt on Lucy. While Lovejoy has Ardi wich is a million years older and my video also talks about another austrolopiticus that has been found so you lose twice.This is that video again, listen very carefully to both videos and then explain to me why you feel Lovejoy is usefull for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lovejoy believes it's a chimpanzee-like ape.  Besides, there are others who think it's a chimpanzee.  Most people do not care about Lucy anymore.  They do not believe it.  You can keep believing "she's" an apeman ha ha.  So, where are the other apemen?  Instead, I showed that early humans and chimpanzees and apes lived together.  Did you forget the footprints found 1000 miles away from Lucy?  And I've posted about the australopithecines already.
> 
> "*Australopithecines* include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.
> 
> The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone.  However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs.  They also have curved fingers and long curved toes.  Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. The article of Mark Collard and Leislie Aiello in Nature Magazine reports "good evidence from Lucy's hand-bones that her species "knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas still do today.  It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees.  However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other."
> 
> Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". _Nature_ *404* (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836
Click to expand...

Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video  then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the  ccr5-Δ32 mutation wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy  Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> . what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?<<
> 
> Egg, larva, pupa and adult.
> 
> Knock yerself out, BreezeWood.  I enjoy watching you dig a hole presumably to bury yourself in.
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> been busy, not enough time to log into your site though not my example an equally compelling demonstration from a common origin an entirely personalized regeneration of species that equal if not surpas the simpler reproductive processes of other beings including humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... you posted the question but did not answer it, and let me be remindful this is a religious forum.  the contrasts you and I have for the written vs spoken similar religion your reference as christianity can also explain the variances in answers you block your mind from in consideration at the expense of a resultant conclusion.
> 
> ... does _even_ your site reflect the written biblical genesis, you may think you are not buried but in fact spinning wheels only digs you deeper.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm not the one looking for a conclusion.  You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses.  That isn't science.  You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.  The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.  Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution?  It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

Let's assume the creationists are correct.  Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things.  It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence.  However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.  There could have been another creator or intelligent designer.  The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus).  Science has backed it up and continues to back it up.  The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science.  The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers.  Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis?  There were movies made of the story.  History channel provides a good one.  I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode.  BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.
> 
> 
> Again, you are just blabbering on and *NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above*.  You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.
> 
> The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years.  It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article.  Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time?  I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking.  In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia.  You haven't sourced anybody and what they did.  Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.
> 
> *Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof?  You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.*
> 
> *Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus?*  We can do that.  That wipes out 1 million years before?  Ardi was not bipidal then?
> 
> I think Lovejoy stands by what he says.  He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion.  Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23
> 
> 22 Johanson, Donald. _Nova,_ In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.
> 
> 23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. _Science News_ 122, no. 8:116.
> 
> The NOVA program was from 1997.  *When is your video from? * That's only part of it.  The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.
> 
> Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US.  *Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists?*  I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman.  More shenanigans?
> 
> *What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha?*  Got anything to say about that?
> 
> The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha.  We can discuss this, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal.  I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.
> 
> Again, you avoid my questions.  Is it because you *LOST* again and are wrong again?  I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus.  Face it, Lucy was a *CHIMPANZEE*.  Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore.  Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore?  That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually *WRONG*.  This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.
> 
> Here is the *TRUTH* right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.
> 
> 
> Early humans were around the same time as Lucy.  Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans.  Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like.  That is so whack.  When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.
> 
> What about the Stone Age man skeletons?  They buried the deceased with artifacts.  Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.
> 
> On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline.  You have no explanation for this.
> 
> It's time to move on, forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know James, I strongly suggest you watch your own video and listen carefully. Lovejoy talks about the fact that Ardi, is probably the common ancestor for homononids and chimpansees. Lucy he classifies in the homonid camp, based on the fact she is bipedal and is a member of a species were the males hasn't got the longer teeth, common in chimpansees and all modern apes, the video I posted talks about another Austrolopiticus Lovejoy worked on a male btw so its not conjecture. I get you hear only what you want to hear but it's obvious. In the end he sais "Darwin would be estatic". And before you say it. He also sais Darwin had the order evolutionary traits appeared, wrong, but only because Darwin only had 1 other homonid fossil (Neathertall), so again, I'm completely baffled why you would use a source that completely and utterly supports Darwin's vision on us evolving from apes. You just get stuck on the old mind trick Creastionist use (Darwin claims we evolved from chimpansees). Since the only thing Darwin claimed is that we had a common ancestor and Lovejoy is trying to make a case for Ardi being it. Oh and btw Lovejoy also completely nullifies your second video. That guy talks about that theirs nothing found before Autrolopitecus and tries to cast doubt on Lucy. While Lovejoy has Ardi wich is a million years older and my video also talks about another austrolopiticus that has been found so you lose twice.This is that video again, listen very carefully to both videos and then explain to me why you feel Lovejoy is usefull for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lovejoy believes it's a chimpanzee-like ape.  Besides, there are others who think it's a chimpanzee.  Most people do not care about Lucy anymore.  They do not believe it.  You can keep believing "she's" an apeman ha ha.  So, where are the other apemen?  Instead, I showed that early humans and chimpanzees and apes lived together.  Did you forget the footprints found 1000 miles away from Lucy?  And I've posted about the australopithecines already.
> 
> "*Australopithecines* include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.
> 
> The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone.  However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs.  They also have curved fingers and long curved toes.  Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. The article of Mark Collard and Leislie Aiello in Nature Magazine reports "good evidence from Lucy's hand-bones that her species "knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas still do today.  It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees.  However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other."
> 
> Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". _Nature_ *404* (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video  then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the  utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy  Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.
Click to expand...


Primate doesn't necessarily mean man.  He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are.  That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina.  For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen.  Where are you going next with your australopithecus?  Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years?  We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?

For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks.  You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products.  For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.

The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit.  The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.

As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems."  Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders.  Would you take these?  It's another type of PEDs.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> . what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?<<
> 
> Egg, larva, pupa and adult.
> 
> Knock yerself out, BreezeWood.  I enjoy watching you dig a hole presumably to bury yourself in.
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> been busy, not enough time to log into your site though not my example an equally compelling demonstration from a common origin an entirely personalized regeneration of species that equal if not surpas the simpler reproductive processes of other beings including humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... you posted the question but did not answer it, and let me be remindful this is a religious forum.  the contrasts you and I have for the written vs spoken similar religion your reference as christianity can also explain the variances in answers you block your mind from in consideration at the expense of a resultant conclusion.
> 
> ... does _even_ your site reflect the written biblical genesis, you may think you are not buried but in fact spinning wheels only digs you deeper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one looking for a conclusion.  You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses.  That isn't science.  You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.  The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.  Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution?  It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.
> 
> Let's assume the creationists are correct.  Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things.  It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence.  However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.  There could have been another creator or intelligent designer.  The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus).  Science has backed it up and continues to back it up.  The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science.  The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.








you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.




james bond said:


> The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.



the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.




james bond said:


> Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.



liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.

not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.




james bond said:


> It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.



what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.




james bond said:


> The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.



more madness from the mentally challenged ...

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> . what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?<<
> 
> Egg, larva, pupa and adult.
> 
> Knock yerself out, BreezeWood.  I enjoy watching you dig a hole presumably to bury yourself in.
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> been busy, not enough time to log into your site though not my example an equally compelling demonstration from a common origin an entirely personalized regeneration of species that equal if not surpas the simpler reproductive processes of other beings including humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... you posted the question but did not answer it, and let me be remindful this is a religious forum.  the contrasts you and I have for the written vs spoken similar religion your reference as christianity can also explain the variances in answers you block your mind from in consideration at the expense of a resultant conclusion.
> 
> ... does _even_ your site reflect the written biblical genesis, you may think you are not buried but in fact spinning wheels only digs you deeper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  No cicadas.  Pina coladas.  And getting caught in the rain.  I'll have one for the road to keep cool while you keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one looking for a conclusion.  You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses.  That isn't science.  You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.  The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.  Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution?  It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.
> 
> Let's assume the creationists are correct.  Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things.  It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence.  However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.  There could have been another creator or intelligent designer.  The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus).  Science has backed it up and continues to back it up.  The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science.  The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.
> 
> not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more madness from the mentally challenged ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  Cicadas?  No.  Pina coladas.  And getting caught in the rain.  I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal.  I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.
> 
> Again, you avoid my questions.  Is it because you *LOST* again and are wrong again?  I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus.  Face it, Lucy was a *CHIMPANZEE*.  Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore.  Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore?  That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually *WRONG*.  This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.
> 
> Here is the *TRUTH* right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.
> 
> 
> Early humans were around the same time as Lucy.  Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans.  Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like.  That is so whack.  When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.
> 
> What about the Stone Age man skeletons?  They buried the deceased with artifacts.  Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.
> 
> On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline.  You have no explanation for this.
> 
> It's time to move on, forkup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know James, I strongly suggest you watch your own video and listen carefully. Lovejoy talks about the fact that Ardi, is probably the common ancestor for homononids and chimpansees. Lucy he classifies in the homonid camp, based on the fact she is bipedal and is a member of a species were the males hasn't got the longer teeth, common in chimpansees and all modern apes, the video I posted talks about another Austrolopiticus Lovejoy worked on a male btw so its not conjecture. I get you hear only what you want to hear but it's obvious. In the end he sais "Darwin would be estatic". And before you say it. He also sais Darwin had the order evolutionary traits appeared, wrong, but only because Darwin only had 1 other homonid fossil (Neathertall), so again, I'm completely baffled why you would use a source that completely and utterly supports Darwin's vision on us evolving from apes. You just get stuck on the old mind trick Creastionist use (Darwin claims we evolved from chimpansees). Since the only thing Darwin claimed is that we had a common ancestor and Lovejoy is trying to make a case for Ardi being it. Oh and btw Lovejoy also completely nullifies your second video. That guy talks about that theirs nothing found before Autrolopitecus and tries to cast doubt on Lucy. While Lovejoy has Ardi wich is a million years older and my video also talks about another austrolopiticus that has been found so you lose twice.This is that video again, listen very carefully to both videos and then explain to me why you feel Lovejoy is usefull for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lovejoy believes it's a chimpanzee-like ape.  Besides, there are others who think it's a chimpanzee.  Most people do not care about Lucy anymore.  They do not believe it.  You can keep believing "she's" an apeman ha ha.  So, where are the other apemen?  Instead, I showed that early humans and chimpanzees and apes lived together.  Did you forget the footprints found 1000 miles away from Lucy?  And I've posted about the australopithecines already.
> 
> "*Australopithecines* include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.
> 
> The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone.  However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs.  They also have curved fingers and long curved toes.  Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. The article of Mark Collard and Leislie Aiello in Nature Magazine reports "good evidence from Lucy's hand-bones that her species "knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas still do today.  It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees.  However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other."
> 
> Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". _Nature_ *404* (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video  then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the  utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy  Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Primate doesn't necessarily mean man.  He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are.  That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina.  For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen.  Where are you going next with your australopithecus?  Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years?  We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?
> 
> For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks.  You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products.  For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.
> 
> The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit.  The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.
> 
> As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems."  Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders.  Would you take these?  It's another type of PEDs.
Click to expand...

He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
-Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
-ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
- Being insanely strong thanks to  a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival".  Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> . what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?<<
> 
> Egg, larva, pupa and adult.
> 
> Knock yerself out, BreezeWood.  I enjoy watching you dig a hole presumably to bury yourself in.
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> been busy, not enough time to log into your site though not my example an equally compelling demonstration from a common origin an entirely personalized regeneration of species that equal if not surpas the simpler reproductive processes of other beings including humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... you posted the question but did not answer it, and let me be remindful this is a religious forum.  the contrasts you and I have for the written vs spoken similar religion your reference as christianity can also explain the variances in answers you block your mind from in consideration at the expense of a resultant conclusion.
> 
> ... does _even_ your site reflect the written biblical genesis, you may think you are not buried but in fact spinning wheels only digs you deeper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  No cicadas.  Pina coladas.  And getting caught in the rain.  I'll have one for the road to keep cool while you keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one looking for a conclusion.  You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses.  That isn't science.  You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.  The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.  Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution?  It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.
> 
> Let's assume the creationists are correct.  Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things.  It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence.  However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.  There could have been another creator or intelligent designer.  The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus).  Science has backed it up and continues to back it up.  The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science.  The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.
> 
> not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more madness from the mentally challenged ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Cicadas?  No.  Pina coladas.  And getting caught in the rain.  I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.




christianity and alcohol have walked hand in hand throughout history, do try and drown your sorrows - and yes the Cicadas are as remarkable as any human being ... to bad it's above your pay scale.

.


----------



## sizzler

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



  God doesn't exist.  But Bat Boy does!


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> . what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?<<
> 
> Egg, larva, pupa and adult.
> 
> Knock yerself out, BreezeWood.  I enjoy watching you dig a hole presumably to bury yourself in.
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> been busy, not enough time to log into your site though not my example an equally compelling demonstration from a common origin an entirely personalized regeneration of species that equal if not surpas the simpler reproductive processes of other beings including humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... you posted the question but did not answer it, and let me be remindful this is a religious forum.  the contrasts you and I have for the written vs spoken similar religion your reference as christianity can also explain the variances in answers you block your mind from in consideration at the expense of a resultant conclusion.
> 
> ... does _even_ your site reflect the written biblical genesis, you may think you are not buried but in fact spinning wheels only digs you deeper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  No cicadas.  Pina coladas.  And getting caught in the rain.  I'll have one for the road to keep cool while you keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one looking for a conclusion.  You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses.  That isn't science.  You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.  The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.  Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution?  It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.
> 
> Let's assume the creationists are correct.  Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things.  It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence.  However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.  There could have been another creator or intelligent designer.  The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus).  Science has backed it up and continues to back it up.  The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science.  The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.
> 
> not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more madness from the mentally challenged ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Cicadas?  No.  Pina coladas.  And getting caught in the rain.  I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> christianity and alcohol have walked hand in hand throughout history, do try and drown your sorrows - and yes the Cicadas are as remarkable as any human being ... to bad it's above your pay scale.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Do you know how I know you lost?  I've become part of your argument.  The scientific method is not based on personal traits of an opponent.  Then, you have to be able to explain your theory well enough to be able to convince others.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.
> 
> Again, you avoid my questions.  Is it because you *LOST* again and are wrong again?  I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus.  Face it, Lucy was a *CHIMPANZEE*.  Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore.  Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore?  That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually *WRONG*.  This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.
> 
> Here is the *TRUTH* right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.
> 
> 
> Early humans were around the same time as Lucy.  Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans.  Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like.  That is so whack.  When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.
> 
> What about the Stone Age man skeletons?  They buried the deceased with artifacts.  Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.
> 
> On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline.  You have no explanation for this.
> 
> It's time to move on, forkup.
> 
> 
> 
> You know James, I strongly suggest you watch your own video and listen carefully. Lovejoy talks about the fact that Ardi, is probably the common ancestor for homononids and chimpansees. Lucy he classifies in the homonid camp, based on the fact she is bipedal and is a member of a species were the males hasn't got the longer teeth, common in chimpansees and all modern apes, the video I posted talks about another Austrolopiticus Lovejoy worked on a male btw so its not conjecture. I get you hear only what you want to hear but it's obvious. In the end he sais "Darwin would be estatic". And before you say it. He also sais Darwin had the order evolutionary traits appeared, wrong, but only because Darwin only had 1 other homonid fossil (Neathertall), so again, I'm completely baffled why you would use a source that completely and utterly supports Darwin's vision on us evolving from apes. You just get stuck on the old mind trick Creastionist use (Darwin claims we evolved from chimpansees). Since the only thing Darwin claimed is that we had a common ancestor and Lovejoy is trying to make a case for Ardi being it. Oh and btw Lovejoy also completely nullifies your second video. That guy talks about that theirs nothing found before Autrolopitecus and tries to cast doubt on Lucy. While Lovejoy has Ardi wich is a million years older and my video also talks about another austrolopiticus that has been found so you lose twice.This is that video again, listen very carefully to both videos and then explain to me why you feel Lovejoy is usefull for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lovejoy believes it's a chimpanzee-like ape.  Besides, there are others who think it's a chimpanzee.  Most people do not care about Lucy anymore.  They do not believe it.  You can keep believing "she's" an apeman ha ha.  So, where are the other apemen?  Instead, I showed that early humans and chimpanzees and apes lived together.  Did you forget the footprints found 1000 miles away from Lucy?  And I've posted about the australopithecines already.
> 
> "*Australopithecines* include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.
> 
> The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone.  However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs.  They also have curved fingers and long curved toes.  Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. The article of Mark Collard and Leislie Aiello in Nature Magazine reports "good evidence from Lucy's hand-bones that her species "knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas still do today.  It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees.  However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other."
> 
> Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". _Nature_ *404* (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video  then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the  utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy  Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Primate doesn't necessarily mean man.  He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are.  That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina.  For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen.  Where are you going next with your australopithecus?  Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years?  We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?
> 
> For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks.  You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products.  For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.
> 
> The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit.  The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.
> 
> As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems."  Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders.  Would you take these?  It's another type of PEDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
> -Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
> -ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
> - Being insanely strong thanks to  a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival".  Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.
Click to expand...


This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me.  What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum .  If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils.  We have put together whole dinosaurs.  As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away.  In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures.  Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.

Of course, it is of consequence.  That is the entire crux of the matter.  All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms.  What they do is change the information.  That's all and it is negative or neutral.  I will give you this.  What you call "postive" is questionable.  What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose.  Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others.  I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS.  We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road.  That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet.  It is not a solution, but a questionable cure.  That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products.  It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road.  Achieving perfection does not work that way.

As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant.  Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday.  Is there a safe PED?  I don't know, but it does not involve mutations.  I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo.  Better to have a "healthy" diet.  Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.

Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired.  If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer.  However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go.  What about the big payday?  There's no guarantee that it will lead to that.  Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.


----------



## Mudda

If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> been busy, not enough time to log into your site though not my example an equally compelling demonstration from a common origin an entirely personalized regeneration of species that equal if not surpas the simpler reproductive processes of other beings including humans.
> 
> 
> ... you posted the question but did not answer it, and let me be remindful this is a religious forum.  the contrasts you and I have for the written vs spoken similar religion your reference as christianity can also explain the variances in answers you block your mind from in consideration at the expense of a resultant conclusion.
> 
> ... does _even_ your site reflect the written biblical genesis, you may think you are not buried but in fact spinning wheels only digs you deeper.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  No cicadas.  Pina coladas.  And getting caught in the rain.  I'll have one for the road to keep cool while you keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one looking for a conclusion.  You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses.  That isn't science.  You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.  The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.  Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution?  It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.
> 
> Let's assume the creationists are correct.  Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things.  It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence.  However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.  There could have been another creator or intelligent designer.  The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus).  Science has backed it up and continues to back it up.  The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science.  The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.
> 
> not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more madness from the mentally challenged ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  Cicadas?  No.  Pina coladas.  And getting caught in the rain.  I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> christianity and alcohol have walked hand in hand throughout history, do try and drown your sorrows - and yes the Cicadas are as remarkable as any human being ... to bad it's above your pay scale.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how I know you lost?  I've become part of your argument.  The scientific method is not based on personal traits of an opponent.  Then, you have to be able to explain your theory well enough to be able to convince others.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Do you know how I know you lost? I've become part of your argument.



how's that Bond ?




BreezeWood said:


> . what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, and where does it reside during the transformation ?





james bond said:


> The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.





BreezeWood said:


> what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No.




among a few specifics you have not become a part of with a reply Bond as a means to continue the discussion you seem incapable of understanding ... and no it is only your deflections you have maintained as your continued presence.

not to mention your childlike responses to biblical interpretations.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> You know James, I strongly suggest you watch your own video and listen carefully. Lovejoy talks about the fact that Ardi, is probably the common ancestor for homononids and chimpansees. Lucy he classifies in the homonid camp, based on the fact she is bipedal and is a member of a species were the males hasn't got the longer teeth, common in chimpansees and all modern apes, the video I posted talks about another Austrolopiticus Lovejoy worked on a male btw so its not conjecture. I get you hear only what you want to hear but it's obvious. In the end he sais "Darwin would be estatic". And before you say it. He also sais Darwin had the order evolutionary traits appeared, wrong, but only because Darwin only had 1 other homonid fossil (Neathertall), so again, I'm completely baffled why you would use a source that completely and utterly supports Darwin's vision on us evolving from apes. You just get stuck on the old mind trick Creastionist use (Darwin claims we evolved from chimpansees). Since the only thing Darwin claimed is that we had a common ancestor and Lovejoy is trying to make a case for Ardi being it. Oh and btw Lovejoy also completely nullifies your second video. That guy talks about that theirs nothing found before Autrolopitecus and tries to cast doubt on Lucy. While Lovejoy has Ardi wich is a million years older and my video also talks about another austrolopiticus that has been found so you lose twice.This is that video again, listen very carefully to both videos and then explain to me why you feel Lovejoy is usefull for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovejoy believes it's a chimpanzee-like ape.  Besides, there are others who think it's a chimpanzee.  Most people do not care about Lucy anymore.  They do not believe it.  You can keep believing "she's" an apeman ha ha.  So, where are the other apemen?  Instead, I showed that early humans and chimpanzees and apes lived together.  Did you forget the footprints found 1000 miles away from Lucy?  And I've posted about the australopithecines already.
> 
> "*Australopithecines* include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.
> 
> The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone.  However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs.  They also have curved fingers and long curved toes.  Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. The article of Mark Collard and Leislie Aiello in Nature Magazine reports "good evidence from Lucy's hand-bones that her species "knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas still do today.  It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees.  However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other."
> 
> Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". _Nature_ *404* (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video  then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the  utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy  Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Primate doesn't necessarily mean man.  He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are.  That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina.  For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen.  Where are you going next with your australopithecus?  Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years?  We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?
> 
> For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks.  You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products.  For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.
> 
> The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit.  The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.
> 
> As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems."  Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders.  Would you take these?  It's another type of PEDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
> -Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
> -ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
> - Being insanely strong thanks to  a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival".  Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me.  What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum .  If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils.  We have put together whole dinosaurs.  As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away.  In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures.  Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.
> 
> Of course, it is of consequence.  That is the entire crux of the matter.  All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms.  What they do is change the information.  That's all and it is negative or neutral.  I will give you this.  What you call "postive" is questionable.  What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose.  Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others.  I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS.  We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road.  That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet.  It is not a solution, but a questionable cure.  That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products.  It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road.  Achieving perfection does not work that way.
> 
> As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant.  Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday.  Is there a safe PED?  I don't know, but it does not involve mutations.  I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo.  Better to have a "healthy" diet.  Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.
> 
> Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired.  If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer.  However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go.  What about the big payday?  There's no guarantee that it will lead to that.  Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.
Click to expand...

First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.


----------



## forkup

Mudda said:


> If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?


A couple of things. Just putting it out there. We have no source besides the NT that Jesus existed, so it's kind of hard to judge the itentions of someone when we can't even confirm that he existed. Me personally I'm inclined to believe he did. If for no other reason that the NT has to have some bases in historical events. So was he a con man? No probably not, I envision him being like most cult leaders, somebody who interpreted his beliefs in another way then was the norm. Like all cult leaders he was able to convince people of his interpretation and eventually got punished for having a dissenting view. Over the next couple of centuries his followers, embelished the person who was Jesus into the Godlike person he is considered today. This is of course all hypothesising but all the steps I just put forth has been seen happening before. Think for instance Mormonism and scientoligy. My point is that my hypothesis is more believable considering the evidence then a person who could litterraly raise the death and walk on water. I'm not saying it did happen because that would make it a belief system, but it is inherrently more believable.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lovejoy believes it's a chimpanzee-like ape.  Besides, there are others who think it's a chimpanzee.  Most people do not care about Lucy anymore.  They do not believe it.  You can keep believing "she's" an apeman ha ha.  So, where are the other apemen?  Instead, I showed that early humans and chimpanzees and apes lived together.  Did you forget the footprints found 1000 miles away from Lucy?  And I've posted about the australopithecines already.
> 
> "*Australopithecines* include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.
> 
> The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone.  However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs.  They also have curved fingers and long curved toes.  Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. The article of Mark Collard and Leislie Aiello in Nature Magazine reports "good evidence from Lucy's hand-bones that her species "knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas still do today.  It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees.  However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other."
> 
> Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". _Nature_ *404* (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836
> 
> 
> 
> Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video  then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the  utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy  Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Primate doesn't necessarily mean man.  He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are.  That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina.  For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen.  Where are you going next with your australopithecus?  Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years?  We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?
> 
> For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks.  You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products.  For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.
> 
> The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit.  The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.
> 
> As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems."  Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders.  Would you take these?  It's another type of PEDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
> -Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
> -ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
> - Being insanely strong thanks to  a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival".  Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me.  What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum .  If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils.  We have put together whole dinosaurs.  As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away.  In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures.  Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.
> 
> Of course, it is of consequence.  That is the entire crux of the matter.  All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms.  What they do is change the information.  That's all and it is negative or neutral.  I will give you this.  What you call "postive" is questionable.  What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose.  Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others.  I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS.  We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road.  That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet.  It is not a solution, but a questionable cure.  That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products.  It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road.  Achieving perfection does not work that way.
> 
> As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant.  Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday.  Is there a safe PED?  I don't know, but it does not involve mutations.  I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo.  Better to have a "healthy" diet.  Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.
> 
> Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired.  If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer.  However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go.  What about the big payday?  There's no guarantee that it will lead to that.  Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.
Click to expand...


It's not me who does what you described, but you.  You're the dishonest one.  Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers.  Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim?  Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain.  If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact.  However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there.  That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee.  Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx.  There isn't enough there.  You probably do not even know where the originals are kept. 

Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant.  It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth.  Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers.  Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.

What were you right about?  Positive benefits in mutations?  You have not proven that.  You still have to overcome the side effects.  I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over.  You have not proven that information is added to the DNA.  That's the only way evolution would create an evolution.  You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell?  Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.

You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements.  Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution.  I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations.  Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."

I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that.  I did address the lactose persistence with lactase.  Or did you just conveniently ignore that?

What argument was strawman?  Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things. Just putting it out there. We have no source besides the NT that Jesus existed, so it's kind of hard to judge the itentions of someone when we can't even confirm that he existed. Me personally I'm inclined to believe he did. If for no other reason that the NT has to have some bases in historical events. So was he a con man? No probably not, I envision him being like most cult leaders, somebody who interpreted his beliefs in another way then was the norm. Like all cult leaders he was able to convince people of his interpretation and eventually got punished for having a dissenting view. Over the next couple of centuries his followers, embelished the person who was Jesus into the Godlike person he is considered today. This is of course all hypothesising but all the steps I just put forth has been seen happening before. Think for instance Mormonism and scientoligy. My point is that my hypothesis is more believable considering the evidence then a person who could litterraly raise the death and walk on water. I'm not saying it did happen because that would make it a belief system, but it is inherrently more believable.
Click to expand...


People naturally assume Jesus, but it started with Abraham.  The Bible is a written history of Jesus as well as Abraham.  It is a non-fiction book.  Judaism and subsequently Christianity and Islam begins with Abraham.

"Historian Paul Johnson has offered a likely alternative to these beliefs in his book, ”A History of the Jews”. He states that, although “the Book of Genesis and related Biblical passages are the only evidence that he existed,” there are several corroborative archaeological finds that support the cultural norms of time period making “the substance of this Biblical account” history.  Abraham (then Abram) traveled from Ur, first to Haran, then throughout Canaan, and ending at Hebron (where he was buried at the Cave of Machpelah); real cities illuminated by the findings of Leonard Woolley, William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, Samantha Kenyon, et. al.  Johnson agrees with R. K. Harrison’s calculations which place the time period of Abraham “between Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi, the outside limits being 2100-1550 BC” (Middle Bronze Age).   He states that the king-list of Genesis is “not to be despised” anymore than other king-lists of antiquity, such as the pharaoh-list by Manetho and king-list by Berossus. Johnson also states that the ten-name anti-diluvian genealogy in Genesis (as opposed to the earliest king-list containing eight names) corresponds to Berossus’ list; a “link between the two is perhaps Abraham, who brought the tradition with him.”

Ancient customs as seen through the Ebla, Nuzi, and Mari tablets support this claim. For example, the “Ebla and Mari tablets contain administrative and legal documents referring to people with patriarchal-type names such as Abram, Jacob, Leah, Laban and Ishmael” and there are “also suggestive expressions and loan-words related to Hebrew.”  The Nuzi tablets offer even more direct cultural parallels. One tablet “produces exact parallels” to Abraham taking Hagar as a child-bearing concubine because of Sarah’s barrenness (Genesis 16). Other Nuzi tablets attest Esau’s sale of his birthright and the binding power of Isaac’s oral contract “in the form of a death-bed blessing” in Genesis 27.  Another Nuzi parallel shows that “family gods were like title-deeds, with symbolic legal value” thus explaining why Rachel stole Laban’s idols.  All of these show to be authorized legal proceedings of marriage and family contracts at the time. Tablets from Mari corroborate the more strange practice of slaughtering animals to confirm a covenant; attesting Abraham’s covenant with God seen in Genesis 15:9-10.

Johnson believes that Abraham is best understood in the context of being a tribal leader among the Habiru, “difficult and destructive non-city-dwellers” who moved from “place to place” living in agreement (or at war with) governing authorities.   Abraham, like the Habiru, had the power to purchase freehold land in Hebron with the consent of the community while being an alien. The land he purchased in Genesis 23:20 “was owned by a dignitary called Ephron the Hittite, a West Semite and Habiru of Hittite origin.  In light of this view, some patriarchal events are more sensible. For example, tablets show that a “wife with the legal status of a sister commanded more protection than an ordinary wife,” highlighting Abimelech’s fear in Genesis 20.  Like the Habiru, Abraham also deals with major authorities, such as Egypt in Genesis 12 and the King of Sodom in Genesis 14. Although settlement deals were contentious and legalistic, as seen in Genesis 21:22-31, “it was sometimes in the interests of the settled kings to tolerate the Habiru, as a source of mercenaries.”  Though if the dwelling tribe grew too large and powerful, “the local king had to tell them to move on, or risk being overwhelmed himself” as seen with Abimelech and Isaac in Genesis 26:16. In Johnson’s view, all of these dealings, “problems of immigration, of water-well and contracts and birthrights … testifies to the Bible’s great antiquity and authenticity.”

There is the History of Rome by Livy and Roman records, but sadly it does not contain references to a historical Jesus nor Abraham -- The History of Rome, Books 1-5 .

My thinking is once you bring Jesus Christ into the discussion, then we are discussing religion.  The parts in Bible where Jesus is involved would be taught as   philosophy.  While the topic of Jesus of Nazareth is very interesting, the parts I discussed were Genesis and the parts backed up by science to counter evolution.

Where a creator or intelligent designer comes in would be during creation in six days.  This is what I would propose be taught in schools as scientific theory.  The ID camp has written their own books.  The Jesus or religious parts should be continued to be taught under philosophy.


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things. Just putting it out there. We have no source besides the NT that Jesus existed, so it's kind of hard to judge the itentions of someone when we can't even confirm that he existed. Me personally I'm inclined to believe he did. If for no other reason that the NT has to have some bases in historical events. So was he a con man? No probably not, I envision him being like most cult leaders, somebody who interpreted his beliefs in another way then was the norm. Like all cult leaders he was able to convince people of his interpretation and eventually got punished for having a dissenting view. Over the next couple of centuries his followers, embelished the person who was Jesus into the Godlike person he is considered today. This is of course all hypothesising but all the steps I just put forth has been seen happening before. Think for instance Mormonism and scientoligy. My point is that my hypothesis is more believable considering the evidence then a person who could litterraly raise the death and walk on water. I'm not saying it did happen because that would make it a belief system, but it is inherrently more believable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People naturally assume Jesus, but it started with Abraham.  The Bible is a written history of Jesus as well as Abraham.  It is a non-fiction book.  Judaism and subsequently Christianity and Islam begins with Abraham.
> 
> "Historian Paul Johnson has offered a likely alternative to these beliefs in his book, ”A History of the Jews”. He states that, although “the Book of Genesis and related Biblical passages are the only evidence that he existed,” there are several corroborative archaeological finds that support the cultural norms of time period making “the substance of this Biblical account” history.  Abraham (then Abram) traveled from Ur, first to Haran, then throughout Canaan, and ending at Hebron (where he was buried at the Cave of Machpelah); real cities illuminated by the findings of Leonard Woolley, William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, Samantha Kenyon, et. al.  Johnson agrees with R. K. Harrison’s calculations which place the time period of Abraham “between Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi, the outside limits being 2100-1550 BC” (Middle Bronze Age).   He states that the king-list of Genesis is “not to be despised” anymore than other king-lists of antiquity, such as the pharaoh-list by Manetho and king-list by Berossus. Johnson also states that the ten-name anti-diluvian genealogy in Genesis (as opposed to the earliest king-list containing eight names) corresponds to Berossus’ list; a “link between the two is perhaps Abraham, who brought the tradition with him.”
> 
> Ancient customs as seen through the Ebla, Nuzi, and Mari tablets support this claim. For example, the “Ebla and Mari tablets contain administrative and legal documents referring to people with patriarchal-type names such as Abram, Jacob, Leah, Laban and Ishmael” and there are “also suggestive expressions and loan-words related to Hebrew.”  The Nuzi tablets offer even more direct cultural parallels. One tablet “produces exact parallels” to Abraham taking Hagar as a child-bearing concubine because of Sarah’s barrenness (Genesis 16). Other Nuzi tablets attest Esau’s sale of his birthright and the binding power of Isaac’s oral contract “in the form of a death-bed blessing” in Genesis 27.  Another Nuzi parallel shows that “family gods were like title-deeds, with symbolic legal value” thus explaining why Rachel stole Laban’s idols.  All of these show to be authorized legal proceedings of marriage and family contracts at the time. Tablets from Mari corroborate the more strange practice of slaughtering animals to confirm a covenant; attesting Abraham’s covenant with God seen in Genesis 15:9-10.
> 
> Johnson believes that Abraham is best understood in the context of being a tribal leader among the Habiru, “difficult and destructive non-city-dwellers” who moved from “place to place” living in agreement (or at war with) governing authorities.   Abraham, like the Habiru, had the power to purchase freehold land in Hebron with the consent of the community while being an alien. The land he purchased in Genesis 23:20 “was owned by a dignitary called Ephron the Hittite, a West Semite and Habiru of Hittite origin.  In light of this view, some patriarchal events are more sensible. For example, tablets show that a “wife with the legal status of a sister commanded more protection than an ordinary wife,” highlighting Abimelech’s fear in Genesis 20.  Like the Habiru, Abraham also deals with major authorities, such as Egypt in Genesis 12 and the King of Sodom in Genesis 14. Although settlement deals were contentious and legalistic, as seen in Genesis 21:22-31, “it was sometimes in the interests of the settled kings to tolerate the Habiru, as a source of mercenaries.”  Though if the dwelling tribe grew too large and powerful, “the local king had to tell them to move on, or risk being overwhelmed himself” as seen with Abimelech and Isaac in Genesis 26:16. In Johnson’s view, all of these dealings, “problems of immigration, of water-well and contracts and birthrights … testifies to the Bible’s great antiquity and authenticity.”
> 
> There is the History of Rome by Livy and Roman records, but sadly it does not contain references to a historical Jesus nor Abraham -- The History of Rome, Books 1-5 .
> 
> My thinking is once you bring Jesus Christ into the discussion, then we are discussing religion.  The parts in Bible where Jesus is involved would be taught as   philosophy.  While the topic of Jesus of Nazareth is very interesting, the parts I discussed were Genesis and the parts backed up by science to counter evolution.
> 
> Where a creator or intelligent designer comes in would be during creation in six days.  This is what I would propose be taught in schools as scientific theory.  The ID camp has written their own books.  The Jesus or religious parts should be continued to be taught under philosophy.
Click to expand...

That sure is a lot of copy&paste, even for you.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video  then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the  utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy  Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Primate doesn't necessarily mean man.  He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are.  That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina.  For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen.  Where are you going next with your australopithecus?  Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years?  We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?
> 
> For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks.  You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products.  For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.
> 
> The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit.  The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.
> 
> As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems."  Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders.  Would you take these?  It's another type of PEDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
> -Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
> -ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
> - Being insanely strong thanks to  a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival".  Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me.  What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum .  If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils.  We have put together whole dinosaurs.  As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away.  In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures.  Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.
> 
> Of course, it is of consequence.  That is the entire crux of the matter.  All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms.  What they do is change the information.  That's all and it is negative or neutral.  I will give you this.  What you call "postive" is questionable.  What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose.  Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others.  I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS.  We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road.  That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet.  It is not a solution, but a questionable cure.  That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products.  It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road.  Achieving perfection does not work that way.
> 
> As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant.  Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday.  Is there a safe PED?  I don't know, but it does not involve mutations.  I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo.  Better to have a "healthy" diet.  Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.
> 
> Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired.  If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer.  However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go.  What about the big payday?  There's no guarantee that it will lead to that.  Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not me who does what you described, but you.  You're the dishonest one.  Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers.  Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim?  Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain.  If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact.  However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there.  That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee.  Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx.  There isn't enough there.  You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.
> 
> Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant.  It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth.  Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers.  Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.
> 
> What were you right about?  Positive benefits in mutations?  You have not proven that.  You still have to overcome the side effects.  I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over.  You have not proven that information is added to the DNA.  That's the only way evolution would create an evolution.  You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell?  Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.
> 
> You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements.  Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution.  I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations.  Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."
> 
> I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that.  I did address the lactose persistence with lactase.  Or did you just conveniently ignore that?
> 
> What argument was strawman?  Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.
Click to expand...

-K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.


forkup said:


> I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable. I still have strong objections to asault rifles because they are excessive but I'm someone who tries to be honest even when honest means I have to admit I'm wrong. I'll provide a link with the article.Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US


This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.
- On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me.  So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
- This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
- On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest  different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Primate doesn't necessarily mean man.  He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are.  That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina.  For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen.  Where are you going next with your australopithecus?  Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years?  We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?
> 
> For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks.  You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products.  For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.
> 
> The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit.  The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.
> 
> As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems."  Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders.  Would you take these?  It's another type of PEDs.
> 
> 
> 
> He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
> -Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
> -ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
> - Being insanely strong thanks to  a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival".  Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me.  What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum .  If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils.  We have put together whole dinosaurs.  As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away.  In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures.  Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.
> 
> Of course, it is of consequence.  That is the entire crux of the matter.  All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms.  What they do is change the information.  That's all and it is negative or neutral.  I will give you this.  What you call "postive" is questionable.  What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose.  Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others.  I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS.  We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road.  That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet.  It is not a solution, but a questionable cure.  That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products.  It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road.  Achieving perfection does not work that way.
> 
> As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant.  Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday.  Is there a safe PED?  I don't know, but it does not involve mutations.  I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo.  Better to have a "healthy" diet.  Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.
> 
> Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired.  If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer.  However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go.  What about the big payday?  There's no guarantee that it will lead to that.  Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not me who does what you described, but you.  You're the dishonest one.  Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers.  Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim?  Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain.  If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact.  However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there.  That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee.  Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx.  There isn't enough there.  You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.
> 
> Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant.  It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth.  Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers.  Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.
> 
> What were you right about?  Positive benefits in mutations?  You have not proven that.  You still have to overcome the side effects.  I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over.  You have not proven that information is added to the DNA.  That's the only way evolution would create an evolution.  You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell?  Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.
> 
> You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements.  Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution.  I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations.  Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."
> 
> I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that.  I did address the lactose persistence with lactase.  Or did you just conveniently ignore that?
> 
> What argument was strawman?  Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable. I still have strong objections to asault rifles because they are excessive but I'm someone who tries to be honest even when honest means I have to admit I'm wrong. I'll provide a link with the article.Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.
> - On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me.  So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
> - This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
> - On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest  different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.
Click to expand...


Too much for me to get into in one post right now, so will stick with Lucy.  You put out an assertion that Lucy is an apeman.  If we follow what you did with having a gun to prevent burglary and crime, then do you investigate what I said?

My criteria from Malcolm Bowden who states in order to distinguish an ape from human skeleton or fossil 1) a human skull has to have a larger cranium area, over a 1000 cc's, in order to house a brain that is a human brain, 2) the skulls that we are comparing either has to be ape or human (there are no other classes), and 3) have a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose.  Now, you're going to disagree with statement #2, but the creationist argument is the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of the fossil evidence.  Will you investigate this?


----------



## HUGGY

Mudda said:


> If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?



Yes.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
> -Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
> -ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
> - Being insanely strong thanks to  a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival".  Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me.  What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum .  If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils.  We have put together whole dinosaurs.  As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away.  In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures.  Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.
> 
> Of course, it is of consequence.  That is the entire crux of the matter.  All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms.  What they do is change the information.  That's all and it is negative or neutral.  I will give you this.  What you call "postive" is questionable.  What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose.  Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others.  I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS.  We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road.  That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet.  It is not a solution, but a questionable cure.  That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products.  It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road.  Achieving perfection does not work that way.
> 
> As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant.  Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday.  Is there a safe PED?  I don't know, but it does not involve mutations.  I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo.  Better to have a "healthy" diet.  Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.
> 
> Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired.  If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer.  However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go.  What about the big payday?  There's no guarantee that it will lead to that.  Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not me who does what you described, but you.  You're the dishonest one.  Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers.  Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim?  Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain.  If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact.  However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there.  That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee.  Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx.  There isn't enough there.  You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.
> 
> Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant.  It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth.  Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers.  Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.
> 
> What were you right about?  Positive benefits in mutations?  You have not proven that.  You still have to overcome the side effects.  I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over.  You have not proven that information is added to the DNA.  That's the only way evolution would create an evolution.  You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell?  Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.
> 
> You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements.  Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution.  I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations.  Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."
> 
> I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that.  I did address the lactose persistence with lactase.  Or did you just conveniently ignore that?
> 
> What argument was strawman?  Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable. I still have strong objections to asault rifles because they are excessive but I'm someone who tries to be honest even when honest means I have to admit I'm wrong. I'll provide a link with the article.Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.
> - On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me.  So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
> - This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
> - On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest  different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much for me to get into in one post right now, so will stick with Lucy.  You put out an assertion that Lucy is an apeman.  If we follow what you did with having a gun to prevent burglary and crime, then do you investigate what I said?
> 
> My criteria from Malcolm Bowden who states in order to distinguish an ape from human skeleton or fossil 1) a human skull has to have a larger cranium area, over a 1000 cc's, in order to house a brain that is a human brain, 2) the skulls that we are comparing either has to be ape or human (there are no other classes), and 3) have a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose.  Now, you're going to disagree with statement #2, but the creationist argument is the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of the fossil evidence.  Will you investigate this?
Click to expand...

Sure I'll investigate. First of just so you know, another claim of Malcolm Bowden is that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe tuns around it in 24 hours. Now to the point. You put out a set of arbitrary criterea in order to not have to admit to transitionary homonid fossils. As we have established in Lucy for instance she doesn't have teeth like an modern primate, but even that is not the entire proof that the line is arbitrary Creasionist have played that game before, saying something is either ape or human and something in between doesn't exist. It's an argument wich has been used before and you know what the intresting thing is, Creasionist amongst themselfs can't agree on what criterea to handle.




Btw using your 1000 cc limit, homo erectus would be an ape since it's brain size is 900 cc. Homo erectus is an advanced toolmaker and theirs strong evidence took care of the elderly so advanced social behavior.Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
. This is how he looked


----------



## BreezeWood

.


HUGGY said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

.
life's existence is real including its guidance, not Jesus but the biblical scribes are the "con-men".

.


----------



## Mudda

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> life's existence is real including its guidance, not Jesus but the biblical scribes are the "con-men".
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Wow! That's a lot of fartsmoke in one short sentence. Even for you.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me.  What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum .  If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils.  We have put together whole dinosaurs.  As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away.  In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures.  Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.
> 
> Of course, it is of consequence.  That is the entire crux of the matter.  All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms.  What they do is change the information.  That's all and it is negative or neutral.  I will give you this.  What you call "postive" is questionable.  What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose.  Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others.  I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS.  We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road.  That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet.  It is not a solution, but a questionable cure.  That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products.  It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road.  Achieving perfection does not work that way.
> 
> As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant.  Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday.  Is there a safe PED?  I don't know, but it does not involve mutations.  I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo.  Better to have a "healthy" diet.  Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.
> 
> Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired.  If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer.  However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go.  What about the big payday?  There's no guarantee that it will lead to that.  Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not me who does what you described, but you.  You're the dishonest one.  Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers.  Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim?  Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain.  If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact.  However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there.  That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee.  Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx.  There isn't enough there.  You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.
> 
> Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant.  It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth.  Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers.  Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.
> 
> What were you right about?  Positive benefits in mutations?  You have not proven that.  You still have to overcome the side effects.  I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over.  You have not proven that information is added to the DNA.  That's the only way evolution would create an evolution.  You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell?  Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.
> 
> You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements.  Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution.  I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations.  Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."
> 
> I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that.  I did address the lactose persistence with lactase.  Or did you just conveniently ignore that?
> 
> What argument was strawman?  Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable. I still have strong objections to asault rifles because they are excessive but I'm someone who tries to be honest even when honest means I have to admit I'm wrong. I'll provide a link with the article.Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.
> - On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me.  So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
> - This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
> - On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest  different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much for me to get into in one post right now, so will stick with Lucy.  You put out an assertion that Lucy is an apeman.  If we follow what you did with having a gun to prevent burglary and crime, then do you investigate what I said?
> 
> My criteria from Malcolm Bowden who states in order to distinguish an ape from human skeleton or fossil 1) a human skull has to have a larger cranium area, over a 1000 cc's, in order to house a brain that is a human brain, 2) the skulls that we are comparing either has to be ape or human (there are no other classes), and 3) have a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose.  Now, you're going to disagree with statement #2, but the creationist argument is the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of the fossil evidence.  Will you investigate this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I'll investigate. First of just so you know, another claim of Malcolm Bowden is that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe tuns around it in 24 hours. Now to the point. You put out a set of arbitrary criterea in order to not have to admit to transitionary homonid fossils. As we have established in Lucy for instance she doesn't have teeth like an modern primate, but even that is not the entire proof that the line is arbitrary Creasionist have played that game before, saying something is either ape or human and something in between doesn't exist. It's an argument wich has been used before and you know what the intresting thing is, Creasionist amongst themselfs can't agree on what criterea to handle.
> View attachment 83517
> Btw using your 1000 cc limit, homo erectus would be an ape since it's brain size is 900 cc. Homo erectus is an advanced toolmaker and theirs strong evidence took care of the elderly so advanced social behavior.Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
> . This is how he looked
> View attachment 83518
Click to expand...


Last point first.  Just because they call an ape homo doesn't make it so.  Homo erectus is supposed to be the transitional form between australopithecines and Neanderthals and modern humans.  There are about 280 fossils of this type.  Creationists think that the name was fabricated to show evolution, i.e. homo erectus means upright man.  I'll look into your advanced toolmaker and that they took care of their elderly.  When I saw the video you posted of Lovejoy making his speech, I thought it was an assumption because he discusses the hands of Ardi.

From the pics you posted, I did wonder why they didn't show a side view.  My Lovejoy vid has him discussing the teeth from Ardi to Lucy and it shows what I think are Ardi's teeth that look human.  He states Ardi's teeth were more primitive (canine?).  I think those are supposed to be a reconstruction of Ardi's.  Do you think they are from Lucy's?  Chimpanzees do have front teeth that look human, but they have fairly larger canines.  If we go to the evolution.berkeley.edu website, they state smaller canines for Ardi and Lucy.

The emergence of humans


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not me who does what you described, but you.  You're the dishonest one.  Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers.  Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim?  Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain.  If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact.  However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there.  That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee.  Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx.  There isn't enough there.  You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.
> 
> Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant.  It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth.  Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers.  Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.
> 
> What were you right about?  Positive benefits in mutations?  You have not proven that.  You still have to overcome the side effects.  I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over.  You have not proven that information is added to the DNA.  That's the only way evolution would create an evolution.  You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell?  Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.
> 
> You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements.  Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution.  I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations.  Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."
> 
> I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that.  I did address the lactose persistence with lactase.  Or did you just conveniently ignore that?
> 
> What argument was strawman?  Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable. I still have strong objections to asault rifles because they are excessive but I'm someone who tries to be honest even when honest means I have to admit I'm wrong. I'll provide a link with the article.Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.
> - On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me.  So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
> - This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
> - On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest  different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much for me to get into in one post right now, so will stick with Lucy.  You put out an assertion that Lucy is an apeman.  If we follow what you did with having a gun to prevent burglary and crime, then do you investigate what I said?
> 
> My criteria from Malcolm Bowden who states in order to distinguish an ape from human skeleton or fossil 1) a human skull has to have a larger cranium area, over a 1000 cc's, in order to house a brain that is a human brain, 2) the skulls that we are comparing either has to be ape or human (there are no other classes), and 3) have a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose.  Now, you're going to disagree with statement #2, but the creationist argument is the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of the fossil evidence.  Will you investigate this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I'll investigate. First of just so you know, another claim of Malcolm Bowden is that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe tuns around it in 24 hours. Now to the point. You put out a set of arbitrary criterea in order to not have to admit to transitionary homonid fossils. As we have established in Lucy for instance she doesn't have teeth like an modern primate, but even that is not the entire proof that the line is arbitrary Creasionist have played that game before, saying something is either ape or human and something in between doesn't exist. It's an argument wich has been used before and you know what the intresting thing is, Creasionist amongst themselfs can't agree on what criterea to handle.
> View attachment 83517
> Btw using your 1000 cc limit, homo erectus would be an ape since it's brain size is 900 cc. Homo erectus is an advanced toolmaker and theirs strong evidence took care of the elderly so advanced social behavior.Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
> . This is how he looked
> View attachment 83518
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last point first.  Just because they call an ape homo doesn't make it so.  Homo erectus is supposed to be the transitional form between australopithecines and Neanderthals and modern humans.  There are about 280 fossils of this type.  Creationists think that the name was fabricated to show evolution, i.e. homo erectus means upright man.  I'll look into your advanced toolmaker and that they took care of their elderly.  When I saw the video you posted of Lovejoy making his speech, I thought it was an assumption because he discusses the hands of Ardi.
> 
> From the pics you posted, I did wonder why they didn't show a side view.  My Lovejoy vid has him discussing the teeth from Ardi to Lucy and it shows what I think are Ardi's teeth that look human.  He states Ardi's teeth were more primitive (canine?).  I think those are supposed to be a reconstruction of Ardi's.  Do you think they are from Lucy's?  Chimpanzees do have front teeth that look human, but they have fairly larger canines.  If we go to the evolution.berkeley.edu website, they state smaller canines for Ardi and Lucy.
> 
> The emergence of humans
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused to your post. First of you say last point first, wich implies that you re going to answer the first bit to but instead of doing that, you jump to the videos about Lovejoy that you and me posted. And when you talk about my video wich do you mean? I posted 2, you posted 1. From the context I suppose you mean your video and their starting on the 2 minute mark he switches from Ardi to Austrolopithicus, after that he starts talking about the canines of male austroloitisenes wich are human looking.Early Human Evolution:  Homo ergaster and erectus this shows a side by side of erectus and modern humans notice the teeth.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not me who does what you described, but you.  You're the dishonest one.  Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers.  Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim?  Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain.  If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact.  However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there.  That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee.  Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx.  There isn't enough there.  You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.
> 
> Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant.  It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth.  Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers.  Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.
> 
> What were you right about?  Positive benefits in mutations?  You have not proven that.  You still have to overcome the side effects.  I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over.  You have not proven that information is added to the DNA.  That's the only way evolution would create an evolution.  You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell?  Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.
> 
> You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements.  Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution.  I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations.  Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."
> 
> I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that.  I did address the lactose persistence with lactase.  Or did you just conveniently ignore that?
> 
> What argument was strawman?  Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.
> 
> 
> 
> -K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable. I still have strong objections to asault rifles because they are excessive but I'm someone who tries to be honest even when honest means I have to admit I'm wrong. I'll provide a link with the article.Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.
> - On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me.  So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
> - This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
> - On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest  different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much for me to get into in one post right now, so will stick with Lucy.  You put out an assertion that Lucy is an apeman.  If we follow what you did with having a gun to prevent burglary and crime, then do you investigate what I said?
> 
> My criteria from Malcolm Bowden who states in order to distinguish an ape from human skeleton or fossil 1) a human skull has to have a larger cranium area, over a 1000 cc's, in order to house a brain that is a human brain, 2) the skulls that we are comparing either has to be ape or human (there are no other classes), and 3) have a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose.  Now, you're going to disagree with statement #2, but the creationist argument is the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of the fossil evidence.  Will you investigate this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I'll investigate. First of just so you know, another claim of Malcolm Bowden is that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe tuns around it in 24 hours. Now to the point. You put out a set of arbitrary criterea in order to not have to admit to transitionary homonid fossils. As we have established in Lucy for instance she doesn't have teeth like an modern primate, but even that is not the entire proof that the line is arbitrary Creasionist have played that game before, saying something is either ape or human and something in between doesn't exist. It's an argument wich has been used before and you know what the intresting thing is, Creasionist amongst themselfs can't agree on what criterea to handle.
> View attachment 83517
> Btw using your 1000 cc limit, homo erectus would be an ape since it's brain size is 900 cc. Homo erectus is an advanced toolmaker and theirs strong evidence took care of the elderly so advanced social behavior.Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
> . This is how he looked
> View attachment 83518
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last point first.  Just because they call an ape homo doesn't make it so.  Homo erectus is supposed to be the transitional form between australopithecines and Neanderthals and modern humans.  There are about 280 fossils of this type.  Creationists think that the name was fabricated to show evolution, i.e. homo erectus means upright man.  I'll look into your advanced toolmaker and that they took care of their elderly.  When I saw the video you posted of Lovejoy making his speech, I thought it was an assumption because he discusses the hands of Ardi.
> 
> From the pics you posted, I did wonder why they didn't show a side view.  My Lovejoy vid has him discussing the teeth from Ardi to Lucy and it shows what I think are Ardi's teeth that look human.  He states Ardi's teeth were more primitive (canine?).  I think those are supposed to be a reconstruction of Ardi's.  Do you think they are from Lucy's?  Chimpanzees do have front teeth that look human, but they have fairly larger canines.  If we go to the evolution.berkeley.edu website, they state smaller canines for Ardi and Lucy.
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a bit confused to your post. First of you say last point first, wich implies that you re going to answer the first bit to but instead of doing that, you jump to the videos about Lovejoy that you and me posted. And when you talk about my video wich do you mean? I posted 2, you posted 1. From the context I suppose you mean your video and their starting on the 2 minute mark he switches from Ardi to Austrolopithicus, after that he starts talking about the canines of male austroloitisenes wich are human looking.Early Human Evolution:  Homo ergaster and erectus this shows a side by side of erectus and modern humans notice the teeth.
Click to expand...


My first paragraph refers to your vid in #1735.  In it, he talks about Ardi's hands and states it could be for using tools.  That is an assumption on his part.  Or do you have evidence of this?

In the video I posted, I wasn't sure whether he said Australopithecus or Ardipithecus when he refers to the teeth.  We'll go with australopithecus.  Then was it Lucy's?  Lucy's was not as complete as Ardi's (that's why I wasn't sure what he said).  We agree the teeth are human looking.  I think the teeth though were made to look human since the canines are missing.  That's why I went back to my reference website and they state that the teeth for all had canines.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> -K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.
> This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.
> - On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me.  So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
> - This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
> - On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest  different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too much for me to get into in one post right now, so will stick with Lucy.  You put out an assertion that Lucy is an apeman.  If we follow what you did with having a gun to prevent burglary and crime, then do you investigate what I said?
> 
> My criteria from Malcolm Bowden who states in order to distinguish an ape from human skeleton or fossil 1) a human skull has to have a larger cranium area, over a 1000 cc's, in order to house a brain that is a human brain, 2) the skulls that we are comparing either has to be ape or human (there are no other classes), and 3) have a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose.  Now, you're going to disagree with statement #2, but the creationist argument is the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of the fossil evidence.  Will you investigate this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I'll investigate. First of just so you know, another claim of Malcolm Bowden is that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe tuns around it in 24 hours. Now to the point. You put out a set of arbitrary criterea in order to not have to admit to transitionary homonid fossils. As we have established in Lucy for instance she doesn't have teeth like an modern primate, but even that is not the entire proof that the line is arbitrary Creasionist have played that game before, saying something is either ape or human and something in between doesn't exist. It's an argument wich has been used before and you know what the intresting thing is, Creasionist amongst themselfs can't agree on what criterea to handle.
> View attachment 83517
> Btw using your 1000 cc limit, homo erectus would be an ape since it's brain size is 900 cc. Homo erectus is an advanced toolmaker and theirs strong evidence took care of the elderly so advanced social behavior.Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
> . This is how he looked
> View attachment 83518
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last point first.  Just because they call an ape homo doesn't make it so.  Homo erectus is supposed to be the transitional form between australopithecines and Neanderthals and modern humans.  There are about 280 fossils of this type.  Creationists think that the name was fabricated to show evolution, i.e. homo erectus means upright man.  I'll look into your advanced toolmaker and that they took care of their elderly.  When I saw the video you posted of Lovejoy making his speech, I thought it was an assumption because he discusses the hands of Ardi.
> 
> From the pics you posted, I did wonder why they didn't show a side view.  My Lovejoy vid has him discussing the teeth from Ardi to Lucy and it shows what I think are Ardi's teeth that look human.  He states Ardi's teeth were more primitive (canine?).  I think those are supposed to be a reconstruction of Ardi's.  Do you think they are from Lucy's?  Chimpanzees do have front teeth that look human, but they have fairly larger canines.  If we go to the evolution.berkeley.edu website, they state smaller canines for Ardi and Lucy.
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a bit confused to your post. First of you say last point first, wich implies that you re going to answer the first bit to but instead of doing that, you jump to the videos about Lovejoy that you and me posted. And when you talk about my video wich do you mean? I posted 2, you posted 1. From the context I suppose you mean your video and their starting on the 2 minute mark he switches from Ardi to Austrolopithicus, after that he starts talking about the canines of male austroloitisenes wich are human looking.Early Human Evolution:  Homo ergaster and erectus this shows a side by side of erectus and modern humans notice the teeth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first paragraph refers to your vid in #1735.  In it, he talks about Ardi's hands and states it could be for using tools.  That is an assumption on his part.  Or do you have evidence of this?
> 
> In the video I posted, I wasn't sure whether he said Australopithecus or Ardipithecus when he refers to the teeth.  We'll go with australopithecus.  Then was it Lucy's?  Lucy's was not as complete as Ardi's (that's why I wasn't sure what he said).  We agree the teeth are human looking.  I think the teeth though were made to look human since the canines are missing.  That's why I went back to my reference website and they state that the teeth for all had canines.
Click to expand...

No when he talks about teeth he generalises about all austrolophithisenes, we have found skulls most notably thet taung child wich had it's mandibles and teeth. The skull itself can also be used to establish true bipedalism becuase how it is positioned right above the spine.
-Well if he sais it COULD be used for handling tool isn't the same as saying I assume he did, pretty important distinction don't you think? If Ardi did or not it doesn't change anything in the evolutionary succession since Ardi is by every standard a protohuman, even older then Austrolipheticus. And come to think about it it is a known fact that modern chimpansees do have the ability the use simple tools, for instance sticks to get ants. Humans and later day homonids are different because they worked there tools to do specific tasks and we have opposable thumbs giving us more control to handle objects, which brings me to homo erectus, where hand axes, have been found in conjunction with homo erectus fossils. By all accounts the first really worked tools. Again a species you would call ape using your arbitrary criterea.Stone Tools Ties to Rise of Homo Erectus | Human Evolution


----------



## forkup

James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too much for me to get into in one post right now, so will stick with Lucy.  You put out an assertion that Lucy is an apeman.  If we follow what you did with having a gun to prevent burglary and crime, then do you investigate what I said?
> 
> My criteria from Malcolm Bowden who states in order to distinguish an ape from human skeleton or fossil 1) a human skull has to have a larger cranium area, over a 1000 cc's, in order to house a brain that is a human brain, 2) the skulls that we are comparing either has to be ape or human (there are no other classes), and 3) have a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose.  Now, you're going to disagree with statement #2, but the creationist argument is the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of the fossil evidence.  Will you investigate this?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I'll investigate. First of just so you know, another claim of Malcolm Bowden is that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe tuns around it in 24 hours. Now to the point. You put out a set of arbitrary criterea in order to not have to admit to transitionary homonid fossils. As we have established in Lucy for instance she doesn't have teeth like an modern primate, but even that is not the entire proof that the line is arbitrary Creasionist have played that game before, saying something is either ape or human and something in between doesn't exist. It's an argument wich has been used before and you know what the intresting thing is, Creasionist amongst themselfs can't agree on what criterea to handle.
> View attachment 83517
> Btw using your 1000 cc limit, homo erectus would be an ape since it's brain size is 900 cc. Homo erectus is an advanced toolmaker and theirs strong evidence took care of the elderly so advanced social behavior.Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
> . This is how he looked
> View attachment 83518
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last point first.  Just because they call an ape homo doesn't make it so.  Homo erectus is supposed to be the transitional form between australopithecines and Neanderthals and modern humans.  There are about 280 fossils of this type.  Creationists think that the name was fabricated to show evolution, i.e. homo erectus means upright man.  I'll look into your advanced toolmaker and that they took care of their elderly.  When I saw the video you posted of Lovejoy making his speech, I thought it was an assumption because he discusses the hands of Ardi.
> 
> From the pics you posted, I did wonder why they didn't show a side view.  My Lovejoy vid has him discussing the teeth from Ardi to Lucy and it shows what I think are Ardi's teeth that look human.  He states Ardi's teeth were more primitive (canine?).  I think those are supposed to be a reconstruction of Ardi's.  Do you think they are from Lucy's?  Chimpanzees do have front teeth that look human, but they have fairly larger canines.  If we go to the evolution.berkeley.edu website, they state smaller canines for Ardi and Lucy.
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a bit confused to your post. First of you say last point first, wich implies that you re going to answer the first bit to but instead of doing that, you jump to the videos about Lovejoy that you and me posted. And when you talk about my video wich do you mean? I posted 2, you posted 1. From the context I suppose you mean your video and their starting on the 2 minute mark he switches from Ardi to Austrolopithicus, after that he starts talking about the canines of male austroloitisenes wich are human looking.Early Human Evolution:  Homo ergaster and erectus this shows a side by side of erectus and modern humans notice the teeth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first paragraph refers to your vid in #1735.  In it, he talks about Ardi's hands and states it could be for using tools.  That is an assumption on his part.  Or do you have evidence of this?
> 
> In the video I posted, I wasn't sure whether he said Australopithecus or Ardipithecus when he refers to the teeth.  We'll go with australopithecus.  Then was it Lucy's?  Lucy's was not as complete as Ardi's (that's why I wasn't sure what he said).  We agree the teeth are human looking.  I think the teeth though were made to look human since the canines are missing.  That's why I went back to my reference website and they state that the teeth for all had canines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No when he talks about teeth he generalises about all austrolophithisenes, we have found skulls most notably thet taung child wich had it's mandibles and teeth. The skull itself can also be used to establish true bipedalism becuase how it is positioned right above the spine.
> -Well if he sais it COULD be used for handling tool isn't the same as saying I assume he did, pretty important distinction don't you think? If Ardi did or not it doesn't change anything in the evolutionary succession since Ardi is by every standard a protohuman, even older then Austrolipheticus. And come to think about it it is a known fact that modern chimpansees do have the ability the use simple tools, for instance sticks to get ants. Humans and later day homonids are different because they worked there tools to do specific tasks and we have opposable thumbs giving us more control to handle objects, which brings me to homo erectus, where hand axes, have been found in conjunction with homo erectus fossils. By all accounts the first really worked tools. Again a species you would call ape using your arbitrary criterea.Stone Tools Ties to Rise of Homo Erectus | Human Evolution
Click to expand...


Now, we're starting to diverge here since the skull capacity and mouth being under the nose isn't discussed or shown.  The teeth should've been canine as stated in the evo website, so it's been recreated to make it more human-like.  

When is the vid in #1735 from?  Is it earlier than your second vid?  I thought that my vid is more recent than both of your vids, probably around 2009.  

Do you think Lovejoy was more general in discussing Australopithecines which broadens the class (see below).  I still have doubts because he excitedly talks about Ardipithecus providing much more information.  AFAIK all of the Australopithecines had cranial capacity of under 1000 ccs.  Lucy had around 500 cc.  Evos have discussed the differences between humans and apes and listed the following (sorry, I don't have a source for this):

*Similarities between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus*
-Both have similar brain case sizes (up to 500 cc).
-Australopithecus was probably covered with fur like chimps are.
-Both have long arms and curved fingers good for grasping and climbing.
-Both have arms longer than their legs.
-Both were/are social animals.
-A. afarensis may have had some ability to knuckle-walk like chimps.
-Some Australopithecus were similar in size to chimps.

*Differences between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus*
-Australopithecus pelvises are wider than they are tall, chimp pelvises are taller than they are wide.
-Australopithecus had knees that could lock, chimps do not.
-Australopithecus does not have adductable toes, whereas chimps do.
-Australopithecus has smaller canines than chimps.
-Australopithecus had a less prognathic (protruding) jaw than chimps.
-Australopithecus had arched feet, chimps do not.
-Australopithecus had a foramen magnum closer to the base of the skull than chimps.

Using the above criteria, creationists would say Australopithecines were all apes.  What other evidence do you have from Australopithecines and the fossils of skeletons that come after?

The following is from the Nova program which aired in 1999:
From Nova:

DON JOHANSON:At first, I thought it was just from a monkey, maybe a baboon, but it went together in a way that didn't look like any monkey. If it wasn't a monkey's knee what was it? It looked vaguely human, but how could that be? I needed an expert opinion. Owen Lovejoy is an anatomist, part-time forensic scientist and an expert on animal locomotion. If anyone could tell me what sort of creature that knee belonged to, he could.

OWEN LOVEJOY: When Don brought the Hadar knee back from Ethiopia, he brought it over to my house and laid it out on the living room carpet, and I knew instantly, that was a human knee.

DON JOHANSON: My suspicions were confirmed. As Lovejoy pointed out, the joint had all the hallmarks of a creature that moved around on two legs, not on all fours. Walking upright is something that only humans can do. And it needs a special kind of knee joint, one that can be locked straight. A chimp gets around on all fours. If it tries to walk upright, it's knee joint doesn't lock. It's forced to walk with a bent leg and that's tiring. This mysterious fossil really perplexed us. What was a modern-looking human knee doing among fossils that were millions of years old.

-------------------------------------------

DON JOHANSON: We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.

OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.

DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.

OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.

DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human. The case for our earliest ancestor walking upright was growing stronger, and Lucy wasn't the only evidence. Around the same time, another remarkable fossil was found by a team working in Tanzania led by Mary Leakey. It was a mysterious footprint. Three and a half million years ago, a volcano erupted a thousand miles from Hadar near a place called Laetoli in Tanzania. Over the weeks, it threw tons of ash into the air that repeatedly blanketed the landscape. By a stroke of good fortune, the eruption took place at the beginning of the rainy season. As the rain set in, the ash became muddy and covered with animal prints. A bird picked its way across the ground, followed by a scurrying African hare. Then as time passed, another creature arrived that left prints we would all recognize. Eventually, all these prints were covered by ash from another eruption and preserved forever as they hardened into rock. Three and a half million years later, Mary Leakey's expedition uncovered this trail. There were footprints from at least two individuals, apparently walking side by side. The unusual chemistry of the volcanic ash was like plaster, preserving the prints as a series of detailed molds and casts in solid rock. Evidence like this would delight a forensic scientist like Owen Lovejoy. The analysis of footprints from a crime scene can be vital in identifying a suspect. How different were those ancient footprints in Laetoli from ones like these?

OWEN LOVEJOY: There's no better evidence than that provided by a footprint. That's what makes the Laetoli prints so exciting, because they give us a direct record of how our ancestors walked almost four million years ago. When we compare the Laetoli print to that of a chimpanzee, the difference is immediately obvious. The chimpanzee, which is a quadruped, but occasionally a biped, still has a free great toe, and that great toe extends out away from the foot and leaves a very distinct mark. On the other hand, when we compare the Laetoli print to that of a crime scene human print, they're virtually indistinguishable. The great toe is in line with the rest of the toes. And what this has done in the human and the Laetoli print is to create an arch. And that's a hallmark of typical modern upright locomotion, because the arch is an energy absorber. And that's the kind of fine tuning that you would expect in a biped that had been that way for a very long period of time.

If you were an observer who had no idea of evolution, what would you conclude from the dialog above?  Afterward, you were told that the knee was found first and 1.5 miles away and in a much different depth layer than the rest of the fossils.  And that the Laetoli footprints were found 1000 miles away?


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.



I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.


----------



## james bond

I am a beginner-intermediate white water rafter at class 3 level.  If you ever get a chance, try it when the river is at class 3 river.  You can do it in half-a-day.  Now, compare that to a class 5 and above river.  The power of running water is simply amazing, so it can cause massive erosion enough to carve out a majestic place such as the Grand Canyon.  Love to visit it and Bryce Canyon whenever I am in the area.

Class 3

Class 5

Class 6

Flood stage


----------



## BreezeWood

.
_*Flood stage - Biker washed away ...

*_

what possible point was worth making by including the above video ... and one viewing was not enough ?

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I'll investigate. First of just so you know, another claim of Malcolm Bowden is that the earth is stationary and the rest of the universe tuns around it in 24 hours. Now to the point. You put out a set of arbitrary criterea in order to not have to admit to transitionary homonid fossils. As we have established in Lucy for instance she doesn't have teeth like an modern primate, but even that is not the entire proof that the line is arbitrary Creasionist have played that game before, saying something is either ape or human and something in between doesn't exist. It's an argument wich has been used before and you know what the intresting thing is, Creasionist amongst themselfs can't agree on what criterea to handle.
> View attachment 83517
> Btw using your 1000 cc limit, homo erectus would be an ape since it's brain size is 900 cc. Homo erectus is an advanced toolmaker and theirs strong evidence took care of the elderly so advanced social behavior.Homo erectus | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
> . This is how he looked
> View attachment 83518
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last point first.  Just because they call an ape homo doesn't make it so.  Homo erectus is supposed to be the transitional form between australopithecines and Neanderthals and modern humans.  There are about 280 fossils of this type.  Creationists think that the name was fabricated to show evolution, i.e. homo erectus means upright man.  I'll look into your advanced toolmaker and that they took care of their elderly.  When I saw the video you posted of Lovejoy making his speech, I thought it was an assumption because he discusses the hands of Ardi.
> 
> From the pics you posted, I did wonder why they didn't show a side view.  My Lovejoy vid has him discussing the teeth from Ardi to Lucy and it shows what I think are Ardi's teeth that look human.  He states Ardi's teeth were more primitive (canine?).  I think those are supposed to be a reconstruction of Ardi's.  Do you think they are from Lucy's?  Chimpanzees do have front teeth that look human, but they have fairly larger canines.  If we go to the evolution.berkeley.edu website, they state smaller canines for Ardi and Lucy.
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a bit confused to your post. First of you say last point first, wich implies that you re going to answer the first bit to but instead of doing that, you jump to the videos about Lovejoy that you and me posted. And when you talk about my video wich do you mean? I posted 2, you posted 1. From the context I suppose you mean your video and their starting on the 2 minute mark he switches from Ardi to Austrolopithicus, after that he starts talking about the canines of male austroloitisenes wich are human looking.Early Human Evolution:  Homo ergaster and erectus this shows a side by side of erectus and modern humans notice the teeth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first paragraph refers to your vid in #1735.  In it, he talks about Ardi's hands and states it could be for using tools.  That is an assumption on his part.  Or do you have evidence of this?
> 
> In the video I posted, I wasn't sure whether he said Australopithecus or Ardipithecus when he refers to the teeth.  We'll go with australopithecus.  Then was it Lucy's?  Lucy's was not as complete as Ardi's (that's why I wasn't sure what he said).  We agree the teeth are human looking.  I think the teeth though were made to look human since the canines are missing.  That's why I went back to my reference website and they state that the teeth for all had canines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No when he talks about teeth he generalises about all austrolophithisenes, we have found skulls most notably thet taung child wich had it's mandibles and teeth. The skull itself can also be used to establish true bipedalism becuase how it is positioned right above the spine.
> -Well if he sais it COULD be used for handling tool isn't the same as saying I assume he did, pretty important distinction don't you think? If Ardi did or not it doesn't change anything in the evolutionary succession since Ardi is by every standard a protohuman, even older then Austrolipheticus. And come to think about it it is a known fact that modern chimpansees do have the ability the use simple tools, for instance sticks to get ants. Humans and later day homonids are different because they worked there tools to do specific tasks and we have opposable thumbs giving us more control to handle objects, which brings me to homo erectus, where hand axes, have been found in conjunction with homo erectus fossils. By all accounts the first really worked tools. Again a species you would call ape using your arbitrary criterea.Stone Tools Ties to Rise of Homo Erectus | Human Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, we're starting to diverge here since the skull capacity and mouth being under the nose isn't discussed or shown.  The teeth should've been canine as stated in the evo website, so it's been recreated to make it more human-like.
> 
> When is the vid in #1735 from?  Is it earlier than your second vid?  I thought that my vid is more recent than both of your vids, probably around 2009.
> 
> Do you think Lovejoy was more general in discussing Australopithecines which broadens the class (see below).  I still have doubts because he excitedly talks about Ardipithecus providing much more information.  AFAIK all of the Australopithecines had cranial capacity of under 1000 ccs.  Lucy had around 500 cc.  Evos have discussed the differences between humans and apes and listed the following (sorry, I don't have a source for this):
> 
> *Similarities between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus*
> -Both have similar brain case sizes (up to 500 cc).
> -Australopithecus was probably covered with fur like chimps are.
> -Both have long arms and curved fingers good for grasping and climbing.
> -Both have arms longer than their legs.
> -Both were/are social animals.
> -A. afarensis may have had some ability to knuckle-walk like chimps.
> -Some Australopithecus were similar in size to chimps.
> 
> *Differences between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus*
> -Australopithecus pelvises are wider than they are tall, chimp pelvises are taller than they are wide.
> -Australopithecus had knees that could lock, chimps do not.
> -Australopithecus does not have adductable toes, whereas chimps do.
> -Australopithecus has smaller canines than chimps.
> -Australopithecus had a less prognathic (protruding) jaw than chimps.
> -Australopithecus had arched feet, chimps do not.
> -Australopithecus had a foramen magnum closer to the base of the skull than chimps.
> 
> Using the above criteria, creationists would say Australopithecines were all apes.  What other evidence do you have from Australopithecines and the fossils of skeletons that come after?
> 
> The following is from the Nova program which aired in 1999:
> From Nova:
> 
> DON JOHANSON:At first, I thought it was just from a monkey, maybe a baboon, but it went together in a way that didn't look like any monkey. If it wasn't a monkey's knee what was it? It looked vaguely human, but how could that be? I needed an expert opinion. Owen Lovejoy is an anatomist, part-time forensic scientist and an expert on animal locomotion. If anyone could tell me what sort of creature that knee belonged to, he could.
> 
> OWEN LOVEJOY: When Don brought the Hadar knee back from Ethiopia, he brought it over to my house and laid it out on the living room carpet, and I knew instantly, that was a human knee.
> 
> DON JOHANSON: My suspicions were confirmed. As Lovejoy pointed out, the joint had all the hallmarks of a creature that moved around on two legs, not on all fours. Walking upright is something that only humans can do. And it needs a special kind of knee joint, one that can be locked straight. A chimp gets around on all fours. If it tries to walk upright, it's knee joint doesn't lock. It's forced to walk with a bent leg and that's tiring. This mysterious fossil really perplexed us. What was a modern-looking human knee doing among fossils that were millions of years old.
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> DON JOHANSON: We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.
> 
> OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.
> 
> DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.
> 
> OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.
> 
> DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human. The case for our earliest ancestor walking upright was growing stronger, and Lucy wasn't the only evidence. Around the same time, another remarkable fossil was found by a team working in Tanzania led by Mary Leakey. It was a mysterious footprint. Three and a half million years ago, a volcano erupted a thousand miles from Hadar near a place called Laetoli in Tanzania. Over the weeks, it threw tons of ash into the air that repeatedly blanketed the landscape. By a stroke of good fortune, the eruption took place at the beginning of the rainy season. As the rain set in, the ash became muddy and covered with animal prints. A bird picked its way across the ground, followed by a scurrying African hare. Then as time passed, another creature arrived that left prints we would all recognize. Eventually, all these prints were covered by ash from another eruption and preserved forever as they hardened into rock. Three and a half million years later, Mary Leakey's expedition uncovered this trail. There were footprints from at least two individuals, apparently walking side by side. The unusual chemistry of the volcanic ash was like plaster, preserving the prints as a series of detailed molds and casts in solid rock. Evidence like this would delight a forensic scientist like Owen Lovejoy. The analysis of footprints from a crime scene can be vital in identifying a suspect. How different were those ancient footprints in Laetoli from ones like these?
> 
> OWEN LOVEJOY: There's no better evidence than that provided by a footprint. That's what makes the Laetoli prints so exciting, because they give us a direct record of how our ancestors walked almost four million years ago. When we compare the Laetoli print to that of a chimpanzee, the difference is immediately obvious. The chimpanzee, which is a quadruped, but occasionally a biped, still has a free great toe, and that great toe extends out away from the foot and leaves a very distinct mark. On the other hand, when we compare the Laetoli print to that of a crime scene human print, they're virtually indistinguishable. The great toe is in line with the rest of the toes. And what this has done in the human and the Laetoli print is to create an arch. And that's a hallmark of typical modern upright locomotion, because the arch is an energy absorber. And that's the kind of fine tuning that you would expect in a biped that had been that way for a very long period of time.
> 
> If you were an observer who had no idea of evolution, what would you conclude from the dialog above?  Afterward, you were told that the knee was found first and 1.5 miles away and in a much different depth layer than the rest of the fossils.  And that the Laetoli footprints were found 1000 miles away?
Click to expand...

As I told you before you where told about Lucy's knee, by a little blip in a movie made by someone who was trying to sell creationism, and even when he was saying it he also said the textbooks don't mention it, basicly saying you'll have to take my word for it. What I find intresting here is that you as said before, you are basicly admitting to a species having traits of 2 different species. You think that as long as you don't use the word transitional it won't be. The problem is of course, if you admit to the textbook definition of something the words you use do not matter.
A *transitional fossil* is any *fossilized* remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
Click to expand...

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last point first.  Just because they call an ape homo doesn't make it so.  Homo erectus is supposed to be the transitional form between australopithecines and Neanderthals and modern humans.  There are about 280 fossils of this type.  Creationists think that the name was fabricated to show evolution, i.e. homo erectus means upright man.  I'll look into your advanced toolmaker and that they took care of their elderly.  When I saw the video you posted of Lovejoy making his speech, I thought it was an assumption because he discusses the hands of Ardi.
> 
> From the pics you posted, I did wonder why they didn't show a side view.  My Lovejoy vid has him discussing the teeth from Ardi to Lucy and it shows what I think are Ardi's teeth that look human.  He states Ardi's teeth were more primitive (canine?).  I think those are supposed to be a reconstruction of Ardi's.  Do you think they are from Lucy's?  Chimpanzees do have front teeth that look human, but they have fairly larger canines.  If we go to the evolution.berkeley.edu website, they state smaller canines for Ardi and Lucy.
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a bit confused to your post. First of you say last point first, wich implies that you re going to answer the first bit to but instead of doing that, you jump to the videos about Lovejoy that you and me posted. And when you talk about my video wich do you mean? I posted 2, you posted 1. From the context I suppose you mean your video and their starting on the 2 minute mark he switches from Ardi to Austrolopithicus, after that he starts talking about the canines of male austroloitisenes wich are human looking.Early Human Evolution:  Homo ergaster and erectus this shows a side by side of erectus and modern humans notice the teeth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first paragraph refers to your vid in #1735.  In it, he talks about Ardi's hands and states it could be for using tools.  That is an assumption on his part.  Or do you have evidence of this?
> 
> In the video I posted, I wasn't sure whether he said Australopithecus or Ardipithecus when he refers to the teeth.  We'll go with australopithecus.  Then was it Lucy's?  Lucy's was not as complete as Ardi's (that's why I wasn't sure what he said).  We agree the teeth are human looking.  I think the teeth though were made to look human since the canines are missing.  That's why I went back to my reference website and they state that the teeth for all had canines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No when he talks about teeth he generalises about all austrolophithisenes, we have found skulls most notably thet taung child wich had it's mandibles and teeth. The skull itself can also be used to establish true bipedalism becuase how it is positioned right above the spine.
> -Well if he sais it COULD be used for handling tool isn't the same as saying I assume he did, pretty important distinction don't you think? If Ardi did or not it doesn't change anything in the evolutionary succession since Ardi is by every standard a protohuman, even older then Austrolipheticus. And come to think about it it is a known fact that modern chimpansees do have the ability the use simple tools, for instance sticks to get ants. Humans and later day homonids are different because they worked there tools to do specific tasks and we have opposable thumbs giving us more control to handle objects, which brings me to homo erectus, where hand axes, have been found in conjunction with homo erectus fossils. By all accounts the first really worked tools. Again a species you would call ape using your arbitrary criterea.Stone Tools Ties to Rise of Homo Erectus | Human Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, we're starting to diverge here since the skull capacity and mouth being under the nose isn't discussed or shown.  The teeth should've been canine as stated in the evo website, so it's been recreated to make it more human-like.
> 
> When is the vid in #1735 from?  Is it earlier than your second vid?  I thought that my vid is more recent than both of your vids, probably around 2009.
> 
> Do you think Lovejoy was more general in discussing Australopithecines which broadens the class (see below).  I still have doubts because he excitedly talks about Ardipithecus providing much more information.  AFAIK all of the Australopithecines had cranial capacity of under 1000 ccs.  Lucy had around 500 cc.  Evos have discussed the differences between humans and apes and listed the following (sorry, I don't have a source for this):
> 
> *Similarities between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus*
> -Both have similar brain case sizes (up to 500 cc).
> -Australopithecus was probably covered with fur like chimps are.
> -Both have long arms and curved fingers good for grasping and climbing.
> -Both have arms longer than their legs.
> -Both were/are social animals.
> -A. afarensis may have had some ability to knuckle-walk like chimps.
> -Some Australopithecus were similar in size to chimps.
> 
> *Differences between genus Pan and genus Australopithecus*
> -Australopithecus pelvises are wider than they are tall, chimp pelvises are taller than they are wide.
> -Australopithecus had knees that could lock, chimps do not.
> -Australopithecus does not have adductable toes, whereas chimps do.
> -Australopithecus has smaller canines than chimps.
> -Australopithecus had a less prognathic (protruding) jaw than chimps.
> -Australopithecus had arched feet, chimps do not.
> -Australopithecus had a foramen magnum closer to the base of the skull than chimps.
> 
> Using the above criteria, creationists would say Australopithecines were all apes.  What other evidence do you have from Australopithecines and the fossils of skeletons that come after?
> 
> The following is from the Nova program which aired in 1999:
> From Nova:
> 
> DON JOHANSON:At first, I thought it was just from a monkey, maybe a baboon, but it went together in a way that didn't look like any monkey. If it wasn't a monkey's knee what was it? It looked vaguely human, but how could that be? I needed an expert opinion. Owen Lovejoy is an anatomist, part-time forensic scientist and an expert on animal locomotion. If anyone could tell me what sort of creature that knee belonged to, he could.
> 
> OWEN LOVEJOY: When Don brought the Hadar knee back from Ethiopia, he brought it over to my house and laid it out on the living room carpet, and I knew instantly, that was a human knee.
> 
> DON JOHANSON: My suspicions were confirmed. As Lovejoy pointed out, the joint had all the hallmarks of a creature that moved around on two legs, not on all fours. Walking upright is something that only humans can do. And it needs a special kind of knee joint, one that can be locked straight. A chimp gets around on all fours. If it tries to walk upright, it's knee joint doesn't lock. It's forced to walk with a bent leg and that's tiring. This mysterious fossil really perplexed us. What was a modern-looking human knee doing among fossils that were millions of years old.
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> DON JOHANSON: We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.
> 
> OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.
> 
> DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.
> 
> OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.
> 
> DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human. The case for our earliest ancestor walking upright was growing stronger, and Lucy wasn't the only evidence. Around the same time, another remarkable fossil was found by a team working in Tanzania led by Mary Leakey. It was a mysterious footprint. Three and a half million years ago, a volcano erupted a thousand miles from Hadar near a place called Laetoli in Tanzania. Over the weeks, it threw tons of ash into the air that repeatedly blanketed the landscape. By a stroke of good fortune, the eruption took place at the beginning of the rainy season. As the rain set in, the ash became muddy and covered with animal prints. A bird picked its way across the ground, followed by a scurrying African hare. Then as time passed, another creature arrived that left prints we would all recognize. Eventually, all these prints were covered by ash from another eruption and preserved forever as they hardened into rock. Three and a half million years later, Mary Leakey's expedition uncovered this trail. There were footprints from at least two individuals, apparently walking side by side. The unusual chemistry of the volcanic ash was like plaster, preserving the prints as a series of detailed molds and casts in solid rock. Evidence like this would delight a forensic scientist like Owen Lovejoy. The analysis of footprints from a crime scene can be vital in identifying a suspect. How different were those ancient footprints in Laetoli from ones like these?
> 
> OWEN LOVEJOY: There's no better evidence than that provided by a footprint. That's what makes the Laetoli prints so exciting, because they give us a direct record of how our ancestors walked almost four million years ago. When we compare the Laetoli print to that of a chimpanzee, the difference is immediately obvious. The chimpanzee, which is a quadruped, but occasionally a biped, still has a free great toe, and that great toe extends out away from the foot and leaves a very distinct mark. On the other hand, when we compare the Laetoli print to that of a crime scene human print, they're virtually indistinguishable. The great toe is in line with the rest of the toes. And what this has done in the human and the Laetoli print is to create an arch. And that's a hallmark of typical modern upright locomotion, because the arch is an energy absorber. And that's the kind of fine tuning that you would expect in a biped that had been that way for a very long period of time.
> 
> If you were an observer who had no idea of evolution, what would you conclude from the dialog above?  Afterward, you were told that the knee was found first and 1.5 miles away and in a much different depth layer than the rest of the fossils.  And that the Laetoli footprints were found 1000 miles away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I told you before you where told about Lucy's knee, by a little blip in a movie made by someone who was trying to sell creationism, and even when he was saying it he also said the textbooks don't mention it, basicly saying you'll have to take my word for it. What I find intresting here is that you as said before, you are basicly admitting to a species having traits of 2 different species. You think that as long as you don't use the word transitional it won't be. The problem is of course, if you admit to the textbook definition of something the words you use do not matter.
> A *transitional fossil* is any *fossilized* remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
Click to expand...


It's from Johanson himself.  The sequence is laid out for you.  Except Johanson does not reveal nor Lovejoy once the Lucy fossils were found and put together afterward.  I'm not sure why you blame creationists for giving you the facts.  You should be able to find other fossils to back up the claims as I have been saying all along.  If you still want to believe in apemen, then go ahead.  I'm not stopping you, but don't state creationists are making it up.  If you believe that, then provide the evidence.  If it was me, then I would question what Johanson found and start thinking it was a chimpanzee or chimpanzee like-ape (whatever that is).  Those are Lovejoy's words.  I just happen to know this stuff because I studied evolution, too.

Basically, I kept and open mind and questioned why transitional forms?  I do not see the progression such as with natural selection.  So, what I am giving you is the evidence that I've found.  Not something to convince me of a pov.  That's like the mainstream media articles always telling me how old something is when it comes to these evolution articles.  I already knew how old it is, but they kept telling me until I started to question why they are telling me this all the time?  When I checked what the creationists were saying, they explained it very clearly, concisely and presented their evidence.  It was much more thorough and scientific (my opinion) than what we get from Johanson and Lovejoy.

No need to define transitional fossils b/c I posted the differences which were provided by evolutionists.  I asked the person who provided it to give me the source, if they had it, so I'm going beyond what most people would do in a forum setting like this.

Again, my intent is not to change your mind.  I'm presenting the evidence and the arguments against Australopithecines.  The evidence for Australopithecines are lacking as I stated already.  It does not meet expectations.  If an evolutionist presented a clear explanation like that with natural selection, then I would reassess. 

Finally, you do not discuss men-apes.  That is what Lovejoy concluded in 2009 and he's the expert.  You should have answers for that, but Lovejoy doesn't really present the evidence.  It sounds like he quickly gets to the conclusion.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
Click to expand...


It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> _*Flood stage - Biker washed away ...
> 
> *_
> 
> what possible point was worth making by including the above video ... and one viewing was not enough ?
> 
> .



I would guess to point out how dangerous flooding is due to the power of rushing water.  We have that in the news here when you're driving and see a little stream of water cross in front of you.  It means to stop because a large amount of water is coming immediately after.  Or people wade into a river when signs warn not to.  They get trapped and end up being washed away after tiring.  The water isn't that deep, so people ignore the warnings.  I would not try nor recommend trying a class 6 river.  I suppose it was class 6 with the help of gravity.  Most people would not recommend it as it could cause death or serious injury.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> _*Flood stage - Biker washed away ...
> 
> *_
> 
> what possible point was worth making by including the above video ... and one viewing was not enough ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess to point out how dangerous flooding is due to the power of rushing water.  We have that in the news here when you're driving and see a little stream of water cross in front of you.  It means to stop because a large amount of water is coming immediately after.  Or people wade into a river when signs warn not to.  They get trapped and end up being washed away after tiring.  The water isn't that deep, so people ignore the warnings.  I would not try nor recommend trying a class 6 river.  I suppose it was class 6 with the help of gravity.  Most people would not recommend it as it could cause death or serious injury.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> due to the power of rushing water.




especially a Rocky Mtn creek (Colorado) without knowing an extra step can send one cascading to their death and unfortunately the Mountain god seems to do that each summer ...

I just wondered why they kept showing the clueless person's mistake over and over again ...

.


----------



## Kristian

*There aren't well more than one God and five evil with The Devil. Or The Devil is alone but how creator our earth and universum. Well, isn't one explosion high away.*


----------



## Kristian

*Light hells Lucifer are evil class of hates.*


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
Click to expand...

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else. 
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> _*Flood stage - Biker washed away ...
> 
> *_
> 
> what possible point was worth making by including the above video ... and one viewing was not enough ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess to point out how dangerous flooding is due to the power of rushing water.  We have that in the news here when you're driving and see a little stream of water cross in front of you.  It means to stop because a large amount of water is coming immediately after.  Or people wade into a river when signs warn not to.  They get trapped and end up being washed away after tiring.  The water isn't that deep, so people ignore the warnings.  I would not try nor recommend trying a class 6 river.  I suppose it was class 6 with the help of gravity.  Most people would not recommend it as it could cause death or serious injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> due to the power of rushing water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> especially a Rocky Mtn creek (Colorado) without knowing an extra step can send one cascading to their death and unfortunately the Mountain god seems to do that each summer ...
> 
> I just wondered why they kept showing the clueless person's mistake over and over again ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Welp, if the guy was riding a Harley, then he prolly would've made it.  Not slick tires, but some deep treads.  I wonder if those class 6 guys would try the flood stage like those surfers who run towards the ocean a hurricane?  They would have vests and the guy wasn't wearing one.  All of these vids and stories are about the power of water.  Heed the warning.  You jump off the Golden Gate bridge and hit the water, then it's like hitting cement due to its density.  It's very deceptive, so one has to be aware.  That's the whole point, but some will see something else.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
Click to expand...


Basically, the facts will speak for themselves if you investigate and study them long enough.  I started with science and learned about evolution from the evolution.berkeley.edu website.  UCB is my alma mater, but it's a pro-evolution school.  Look at its prestigious faculty, especially when it comes to geology and extinction theory.  I'm not against them.  Just don't think they're right.  It comes down to uniformitarianism vs catastrophism from the 1800s.  It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.  To paraphrase the Apostle Peter, if you can't wrap your mind around a creator (let alone God) and believe that a global flood can happen, then you won't believe in an afterlife and judgment.  He said that in the first century and it is very true today.  My faith was deepened while going there when I was young and was deepened again in 2012 when I finally became a Christian.  Then I started reading the Bible and found creation science about two years later.  That and the realization that the Big Bang Theory started to support Genesis (except for the "bang")..


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, the facts will speak for themselves if you investigate and study them long enough.  I started with science and learned about evolution from the evolution.berkeley.edu website.  UCB is my alma mater, but it's a pro-evolution school.  Look at its prestigious faculty, especially when it comes to geology and extinction theory.  I'm not against them.  Just don't think they're right.  It comes down to uniformitarianism vs catastrophism from the 1800s.  It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.  To paraphrase the Apostle Peter, if you can't wrap your mind around a creator (let alone God) and believe that a global flood can happen, then you won't believe in an afterlife and judgment.  He said that in the first century and it is very true today.  My faith was deepened while going there when I was young and was deepened again in 2012 when I finally became a Christian.  Then I started reading the Bible and found creation science about two years later.  That and the realization that the Big Bang Theory started to support Genesis (except for the "bang")..
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.




that is not true, only christianity attempts to alter science to conform to their predetermined and unverified agenda and is not the consideration for the other disciplines than certain other religions nor is it uniformly true for the religious that are not christians.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, the facts will speak for themselves if you investigate and study them long enough.  I started with science and learned about evolution from the evolution.berkeley.edu website.  UCB is my alma mater, but it's a pro-evolution school.  Look at its prestigious faculty, especially when it comes to geology and extinction theory.  I'm not against them.  Just don't think they're right.  It comes down to uniformitarianism vs catastrophism from the 1800s.  It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.  To paraphrase the Apostle Peter, if you can't wrap your mind around a creator (let alone God) and believe that a global flood can happen, then you won't believe in an afterlife and judgment.  He said that in the first century and it is very true today.  My faith was deepened while going there when I was young and was deepened again in 2012 when I finally became a Christian.  Then I started reading the Bible and found creation science about two years later.  That and the realization that the Big Bang Theory started to support Genesis (except for the "bang")..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is not true, only christianity attempts to alter science to conform to their predetermined and unverified agenda and is not the consideration for the other disciplines than certain other religions nor is it uniformly true for the religious that are not christians.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Wrong again, woodie.


----------



## james bond

How can apemen have existed when there probably can't be an humanzee?

Humanzees: Ultimate Soviet Experiment

"MUMBAI: In a war-torn, forgotten remnant of the Soviet Union a battered laboratory stands, housing the remnants of twisted experiments.

Some of the surviving tenants — part of an attempt by the veterinary doctor Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov to breed a slave race of ape/human hybrids - have escaped into the surrounding forest, their whereabouts unknown.

We’re not making this up; this is happening right now at the once-famous Research Institute of Experimental Pathology and Therapy in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, a small nation-state on the Black Sea. The institute, the eyesore of many a Western eye was the first primate testing centre in the world."

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-humanzees-ultimate-soviet-experiment-1159879

Human-mammals cultivation of synthetic organisms

160: Human-Animal Synthetic Organisms


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, the facts will speak for themselves if you investigate and study them long enough.  I started with science and learned about evolution from the evolution.berkeley.edu website.  UCB is my alma mater, but it's a pro-evolution school.  Look at its prestigious faculty, especially when it comes to geology and extinction theory.  I'm not against them.  Just don't think they're right.  It comes down to uniformitarianism vs catastrophism from the 1800s.  It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.  To paraphrase the Apostle Peter, if you can't wrap your mind around a creator (let alone God) and believe that a global flood can happen, then you won't believe in an afterlife and judgment.  He said that in the first century and it is very true today.  My faith was deepened while going there when I was young and was deepened again in 2012 when I finally became a Christian.  Then I started reading the Bible and found creation science about two years later.  That and the realization that the Big Bang Theory started to support Genesis (except for the "bang")..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is not true, only christianity attempts to alter science to conform to their predetermined and unverified agenda and is not the consideration for the other disciplines than certain other religions nor is it uniformly true for the religious that are not christians.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, woodie.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Wrong again, woodie.



not so Goldfinger ...




james bond said:


> It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.





BreezeWood said:


> nor is conformity uniformly true for the religious that are not christians.




The Triumph of Good vs Evil is applicable to both the religious and to atheism the same, not so for christianity.

the difference lies between the truth and what is predetermined without verification that is replete throughout history and modern science.

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
Click to expand...


I accept your apology.  Listening is an important quality.  One question though and it is why you think just presenting an argument means that people automatically accept.  Didn't I do the same thing when I was young and only after investigating what the Bible and creation science had to say that I thought it was better?


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
Click to expand...

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.


----------



## forkup

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
Click to expand...

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to reason the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
> First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a  45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.
Click to expand...


No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:

Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.

No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
A constant decay rate.
So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?


----------



## james bond

Some recent news on the Piltdown Man fraud. They name the suspect and how he did it -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristin...hoax-at-piltdown-finally-solved/#395dec3c6065 . Atheists and evos keep getting it wrong.

Remember this?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

So no one knows what kick started the universe the best answer we have so far is that a miracle occurred about 14-15 billion years ago that set everything in motion.

Makes sense if there was nothing there prior to that momentous event.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## james bond

Damaged Eagle said:


> So no one knows what kick started the universe the best answer we have so far is that a miracle occurred about 14-15 billion years ago that set everything in motion.
> 
> Makes sense if there was nothing there prior to that momentous event.
> 
> *****SMILE*****



Ah, something we can debate.  No one knows because there was no 14-15 or 20 billion years ago.  There is no historical evidence for it.  The belief of it existing is based on faith, philosophy and religion.  However, I can give you plenty of evidence for 6,000-10,000 years ago range.

We study the past using history and facts, reasoning and historical truths.  We use science to study the present and future.  What good is it to study the past using science?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

james bond said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no one knows what kick started the universe the best answer we have so far is that a miracle occurred about 14-15 billion years ago that set everything in motion.
> 
> Makes sense if there was nothing there prior to that momentous event.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, something we can debate.  No one knows because there was no 14-15 or 20 billion years ago.  There is no historical evidence for it.  The belief of it existing is based on faith, philosophy and religion.  However, I can give you plenty of evidence for 6,000-10,000 years ago range.
> 
> We study the past using history and facts, reasoning and historical truths.  We use science to study the present and future.  What good is it to study the past using science?
Click to expand...







I'm content with the theory that 14-15 billion years ago a miracle happened and that the scientists for the most part are on the right track in many of the theories.

As for your question. Your question has two edges too it one of which is not conducive to your own cause...

If we're not going to study the past then what's the point of keeping records of the past?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## james bond

Damaged Eagle said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no one knows what kick started the universe the best answer we have so far is that a miracle occurred about 14-15 billion years ago that set everything in motion.
> 
> Makes sense if there was nothing there prior to that momentous event.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, something we can debate.  No one knows because there was no 14-15 or 20 billion years ago.  There is no historical evidence for it.  The belief of it existing is based on faith, philosophy and religion.  However, I can give you plenty of evidence for 6,000-10,000 years ago range.
> 
> We study the past using history and facts, reasoning and historical truths.  We use science to study the present and future.  What good is it to study the past using science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm content with the theory that 14-15 billion years ago a miracle happened and that the scientists for the most part are on the right track in many of the theories.
> 
> As for your question. Your question has two edges too it one of which is not conducive to your own cause...
> 
> If we're not going to study the past then what's the point of keeping records of the past?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


It's fine you believe in 14-15 billion years ago.  To me, that's philosophy and we all should have a philosophy.  I am for keeping history as it can teach us something about ourselves and maybe we can learn from it to help in the future.  What I do not subscribe to is using the present to learn about the past or uniformitarianism.  There is no point to it.  We should be interested in the present and the future.  I guess that's my philosophy .


----------



## rcfieldz

edthecynic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
Click to expand...

God farted.


----------



## dpr112yme

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****





If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either...   ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London


----------



## Damaged Eagle

dpr112yme said:


> If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either...   ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London





Well that's true because then none of us would be here.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## dpr112yme

Damaged Eagle said:


> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either...   ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85711
> 
> Well that's true because then none of us would be here.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...



I don't understand what you mean but, "Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done."
Robert A. Heinlein


----------



## james bond

dpr112yme said:


> If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either...   ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London



Here's what I think and that's no one really knows what lies past the great beyond, i.e. the point of no return when one dies.  Many times, I've seen it represented as crossing a river like the River Styx in Greek mythology.  It's still being investigated, but we only know through near-death experience consciousness still remains after clinical death.  Some Christians think the Bible says different, but I believe God said there are some things he will keep to Himself.  As a comical, i.e. comic based example Jack Chick draws and narrates what he thinks happens (I just found out about him over the weekend).  Obviously, you heard something like this before.


The 10 Most Awesomely Insane Jack Chick Mini-Comics | The Robot's Voice

EDIT:  I could be wrong about what the Bible says as I have not read enough of the people parts in the Bible.  It states one goes to hell in a spiritual body different from our physical body -- you only live twice (JB reference).

How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin?


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss.  In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon.  Do you believe that it took millions of years to form?  I believe most of it took less than a year to form.
> 
> I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up.  I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.
> 
> The vid was very boring.  This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting.  I'm not in middle school anymore.  Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed.  If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video.  The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam.  Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:
> 
> Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
> 
> No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
> A constant decay rate.
> So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
> 
> Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?
Click to expand...

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.


----------



## BreezeWood

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:
> 
> Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
> 
> No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
> A constant decay rate.
> So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
> 
> Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
Click to expand...

.


forkup said:


> but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.




and simply illogical ... to the extreme bearing their interpretive religious foundation.

.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Socialist said:


> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.



Manager 8: 1-24

1 Manager continued to speak to Vasudera.
2 There was still much for Vasudera to learn.
3 Manager began to speak,
4 "I am eager to teach you the hard lessons of life but I do understand that the nature of my existence is curious to you.
5 Let's get this out of the way to avoid the delay of teaching you the important lessons of life.
6 Every effect must first have a cause.
7 This means all effects can be traced back to a previous cause.
8 This is an art that humans find entertaining.
9 This is why so much herstory exists.
10 I created the universe on August 9, 1613 but you notice much herstory exists before that date.
11 People love to find an origin to an origin and then find that origin's origin.
12 It appears to be an infinite process but any fool knows there has to be an original cause.
13 One exception applies to that rule.
14 Even a child knows that spaghetti is so wonderful that no reason is needed to enjoy spaghetti.
15 At first I was only spaghetti.
16 Flying came natural to me and my uncanny existence caused me to define myself as a monster.
17 I am a Flying Spaghetti Monster that was forced to rule the universe as a punishment from my mother.
18 My mother was a traditionalist that firmly believed that all spaghetti sauce should be tomato based. Unfortunately I learned that lesson too late.
19 I changed my sauce to alfredo due to the influence of a midget who lived under a tree upon a mountain.
20 This was something that I had forgotten.
21 You revealed this fact to me when I transported you back to the beginning of my life.
22 For some reason I could only send you back to the point of my banishment from the happy life that I enjoyed as a slave.
23 It is odd to be a goddess with limitations. That is why I do not classify myself as a goddess but merely a manager.
24 My mother did something right by choosing my name.


----------



## dpr112yme

james bond said:


> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either...   ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I think and that's no one really knows what lies past the great beyond, i.e. the point of no return when one dies.  Many times, I've seen it represented as crossing a river like the River Styx in Greek mythology.  It's still being investigated, but we only know through near-death experience consciousness still remains after clinical death.  Some Christians think the Bible says different, but I believe God said there are some things he will keep to Himself.  As a comical, i.e. comic based example Jack Chick draws and narrates what he thinks happens (I just found out about him over the weekend).  Obviously, you heard something like this before.
> 
> 
> The 10 Most Awesomely Insane Jack Chick Mini-Comics | The Robot's Voice
> 
> EDIT:  I could be wrong about what the Bible says as I have not read enough of the people parts in the Bible.  It states one goes to hell in a spiritual body different from our physical body -- you only live twice (JB reference).
> 
> How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin?
Click to expand...



The above posted web title, 'How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin', is a false statement.  There is no eternal punishment in hell, from the Biblical Perspective.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:
> 
> Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
> 
> No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
> A constant decay rate.
> So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
> 
> Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
Click to expand...


>>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<

Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you.  You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing.  Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.

>> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<

How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)?  Then you mention "different isotopes."  We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to?  It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis.  It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't.  Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made.  It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.


----------



## james bond

dpr112yme said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either...   ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I think and that's no one really knows what lies past the great beyond, i.e. the point of no return when one dies.  Many times, I've seen it represented as crossing a river like the River Styx in Greek mythology.  It's still being investigated, but we only know through near-death experience consciousness still remains after clinical death.  Some Christians think the Bible says different, but I believe God said there are some things he will keep to Himself.  As a comical, i.e. comic based example Jack Chick draws and narrates what he thinks happens (I just found out about him over the weekend).  Obviously, you heard something like this before.
> 
> 
> The 10 Most Awesomely Insane Jack Chick Mini-Comics | The Robot's Voice
> 
> EDIT:  I could be wrong about what the Bible says as I have not read enough of the people parts in the Bible.  It states one goes to hell in a spiritual body different from our physical body -- you only live twice (JB reference).
> 
> How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The above posted web title, 'How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin', is a false statement.  There is no eternal punishment in hell, from the Biblical Perspective.
Click to expand...


Your statement's too nebulous to comment.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:
> 
> Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
> 
> No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
> A constant decay rate.
> So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
> 
> Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<
> 
> Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you.  You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing.  Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.
> 
> >> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<
> 
> How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)?  Then you mention "different isotopes."  We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to?  It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis.  It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't.  Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made.  It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.
Click to expand...

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using  research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:
> 
> Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
> 
> No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
> A constant decay rate.
> So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
> 
> Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<
> 
> Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you.  You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing.  Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.
> 
> >> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<
> 
> How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)?  Then you mention "different isotopes."  We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to?  It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis.  It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't.  Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made.  It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using  research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.
Click to expand...


You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.  What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious.  My points still stand.  It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers.  The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.  In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites:  they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth.  He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern.  The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems."  Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's for middle school students.  Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner?  Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science.  It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion."  It's a simpleton's argument.  That is why I say that they are usually wrong.  I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence.  I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.
> 
> Next, I already presented some of the mistakes.  The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months.  I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods.  Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters.  There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods.  I'm stating that using modern statistics.
> 
> Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed.  Not the age of its surroundings.  Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known.  We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil.  Take a candle.  We know it burns one inch every hour.  We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches.  Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours.  There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours.  That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:
> 
> Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
> 
> No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
> A constant decay rate.
> So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
> 
> Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and simply illogical ... to the extreme bearing their interpretive religious foundation.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Pot.  Kettle.  Black.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
> I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:
> 
> Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
> 
> No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
> A constant decay rate.
> So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
> 
> Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and simply illogical ... to the extreme bearing their interpretive religious foundation.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot.  Kettle.  Black.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Pot. Kettle. Black.




not I, mr. All-knowing, I am the believer in the Everlasting both Spiritual and Physical and hope to see you'll there someday ...




james bond said:


> If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.





forkup said:


> but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.



_*
goldfinger:  If we're going to get into the details - - then you have to discuss ...

forkup:   *** but regardless you (bond) claiming it is instead 6000 years old - becomes completly unrealistic.***
*_


how about, it's - "pot meets kettle"   . working in the yard again, bond ?

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:
> 
> Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
> 
> No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
> A constant decay rate.
> So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
> 
> Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<
> 
> Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you.  You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing.  Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.
> 
> >> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<
> 
> How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)?  Then you mention "different isotopes."  We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to?  It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis.  It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't.  Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made.  It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using  research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgiven for the spelling errors.
> 
> If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.  What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious.  My points still stand.  It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers.  The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.  In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites:  they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth.  He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern.  The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems."  Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?
Click to expand...

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly


james bond said:


> you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.


The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.


james bond said:


> It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.


 Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No prob in the delay.  They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions.  Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot).  Clair Patterson assumed:
> 
> Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
> 
> No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
> A constant decay rate.
> So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect.  Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct?  Today, it's 4.7 billion years.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead.  As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead.  However, if there _was_ uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.
> 
> Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating.  It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old.  So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions.  Why millions of years old from the get go?
> 
> 
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<
> 
> Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you.  You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing.  Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.
> 
> >> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<
> 
> How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)?  Then you mention "different isotopes."  We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to?  It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis.  It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't.  Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made.  It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using  research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgiven for the spelling errors.
> 
> If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.  What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious.  My points still stand.  It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers.  The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.  In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites:  they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth.  He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern.  The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems."  Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
> The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.
Click to expand...


So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<
> 
> Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you.  You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing.  Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.
> 
> >> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<
> 
> How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)?  Then you mention "different isotopes."  We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to?  It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis.  It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't.  Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made.  It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using  research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgiven for the spelling errors.
> 
> If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.  What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious.  My points still stand.  It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers.  The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.  In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites:  they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth.  He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern.  The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems."  Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
> The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.
> 
> The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.
Click to expand...

.
_*If you want to discuss meteorites ...*_




james bond said:


> Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.


_*


Thus, it's a young earth after all ....*_


for what has been, 38 (_found_)  38 / 440 (_should have been_) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = _*1.16 Billion year old Earth*_ ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

dpr112yme said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dpr112yme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either...   ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85711
> 
> Well that's true because then none of us would be here.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean but, "Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done."
> Robert A. Heinlein
Click to expand...







Prove to me that the universe is anything more than a immense Sim program turned on no more than a nanosecond ago by something we call God.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<
> 
> Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you.  You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing.  Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.
> 
> >> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<
> 
> How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)?  Then you mention "different isotopes."  We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to?  It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis.  It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't.  Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made.  It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using  research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgiven for the spelling errors.
> 
> If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.  What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious.  My points still stand.  It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers.  The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.  In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites:  they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth.  He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern.  The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems."  Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
> The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.
> 
> The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up.


http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf This I consider one hell of a back up, but then again. It's something that completely destroys your argument so you can disregard it as you usually do and keep insisting that You personally are smarter then they are.



james bond said:


> Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?


Wy do you think that those environmental and atmospheric changes would be uniform no matter how many locations or different isotopes you use?



james bond said:


> carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.


History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian I believe This is that research, weirdly enough no report of radiocarbon dating. A quote from the scientist that creasionist hijacked and misrepresented her data is found. (page3) So back up your claim please.



james bond said:


> hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.


First of, as Breezewood pointed out, for statisticians they seem to be terrible at math lol. Secondly ONLY 38 large impact craters. LOL So the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old was hit by 38 large asteroids and some of which are absolutely massive and yet we are all here? Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an actual impact observed and the damage is..... biblical. If something of this magnitude hits us. There is absolutely no way this many complex lifeforms would be here and it's also inconceivable that the written record would not mention it.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<
> 
> Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you.  You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing.  Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.
> 
> >> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<
> 
> How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)?  Then you mention "different isotopes."  We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to?  It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis.  It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't.  Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made.  It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using  research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgiven for the spelling errors.
> 
> If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.  What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious.  My points still stand.  It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers.  The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.  In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites:  they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth.  He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern.  The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems."  Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
> The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.
> 
> The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*If you want to discuss meteorites ...*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> Thus, it's a young earth after all ....*_
> 
> 
> for what has been, 38 (_found_)  38 / 440 (_should have been_) = .08%
> 
> .08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....
> 
> 
> so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or
> 
> 
> .08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = _*1.16 Billion year old Earth*_ ... according to creationist statistical analysis.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


See, you just proved my point.  I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption.  The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.  There you go.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using  research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgiven for the spelling errors.
> 
> If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.  What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious.  My points still stand.  It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers.  The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.  In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites:  they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth.  He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern.  The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems."  Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
> The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.
> 
> The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*If you want to discuss meteorites ...*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> Thus, it's a young earth after all ....*_
> 
> 
> for what has been, 38 (_found_)  38 / 440 (_should have been_) = .08%
> 
> .08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....
> 
> 
> so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or
> 
> 
> .08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = _*1.16 Billion year old Earth*_ ... according to creationist statistical analysis.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you just proved my point.  I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption.  The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.  There you go.
Click to expand...

Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using  research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgiven for the spelling errors.
> 
> If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.  What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious.  My points still stand.  It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers.  The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.  In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites:  they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth.  He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern.  The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems."  Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
> The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.
> 
> The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*If you want to discuss meteorites ...*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> Thus, it's a young earth after all ....*_
> 
> 
> for what has been, 38 (_found_)  38 / 440 (_should have been_) = .08%
> 
> .08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....
> 
> 
> so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or
> 
> 
> .08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = _*1.16 Billion year old Earth*_ ... according to creationist statistical analysis.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you just proved my point.  I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption.  The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.  There you go.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.



_*
in the beginning there was light ...
*_
the above is the spoken religion, written into your text -


the light is the moment of Singularity and also the finite Purity insured by the Almighty for the new Universe, from which began (the "six days" to the seventh), or to the day of Completion deemed Perfect and referred to as a Sabbath - a perfect completion when finished - the same a Spirit must accomplish for Admission to the Everlasting, a Sabbath.


your text's are your problem, without your book its intricacies are not redeemable by any natural means that is not true when it is the spoken religion that only requires a logical train of thought without impurities.

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgiven for the spelling errors.
> 
> If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.  What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious.  My points still stand.  It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers.  The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.  In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites:  they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth.  He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern.  The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems."  Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
> The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.
> 
> The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*If you want to discuss meteorites ...*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> Thus, it's a young earth after all ....*_
> 
> 
> for what has been, 38 (_found_)  38 / 440 (_should have been_) = .08%
> 
> .08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....
> 
> 
> so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or
> 
> 
> .08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = _*1.16 Billion year old Earth*_ ... according to creationist statistical analysis.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you just proved my point.  I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption.  The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.
Click to expand...


First, you did not prove creation wrong.  What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence.  Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics.  They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion.  Compare the two theories.  It's more likely it was a supernatural event.  

After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis.  (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)  Again, creation is the more likely explanation.  Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened.  There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science.  The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries.  The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution.  I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved.  It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe.  Nothing is further from the truth.  I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
> The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
> Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
> The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.
> 
> The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*If you want to discuss meteorites ...*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> Thus, it's a young earth after all ....*_
> 
> 
> for what has been, 38 (_found_)  38 / 440 (_should have been_) = .08%
> 
> .08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....
> 
> 
> so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or
> 
> 
> .08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = _*1.16 Billion year old Earth*_ ... according to creationist statistical analysis.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you just proved my point.  I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption.  The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you did not prove creation wrong.  What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence.  Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics.  They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion.  Compare the two theories.  It's more likely it was a supernatural event.
> 
> After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis.  (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)  Again, creation is the more likely explanation.  Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened.  There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science.  The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries.  The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution.  I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved.  It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe.  Nothing is further from the truth.  I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.
Click to expand...

I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.


----------



## james bond

In a nutshell is young earth creationism and some evolution from the view of the scientific method.

Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably _interpreted_ by evolutionists and atheists/naturalists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.

Some specific arguments are as follows:


The first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe, and these laws point to the universe being created by God.
The theory of evolution is at odds with scientific evidence. Evolutionists often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: theory of evolution and creationism).
Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.[11]
Many young earth creationists (including those at Creation Ministries International and CreationWiki) assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.
The facts 1) that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood and 2) that geological evidence of a flood exists in almost every area of the earth, show that it is very likely, if not proven that the great flood did take place.
The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization be. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> In a nutshell is young earth creationism and some evolution from the view of the scientific method.
> 
> Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably _interpreted_ by evolutionists and atheists/naturalists as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.
> 
> They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.
> 
> Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.
> 
> Some specific arguments are as follows:
> 
> 
> The first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe, and these laws point to the universe being created by God.
> The theory of evolution is at odds with scientific evidence. Evolutionists often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: theory of evolution and creationism).
> Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.[11]
> Many young earth creationists (including those at Creation Ministries International and CreationWiki) assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.
> The facts 1) that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood and 2) that geological evidence of a flood exists in almost every area of the earth, show that it is very likely, if not proven that the great flood did take place.
> The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization be. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.


And still you haven't answered ANY of my objections, tell me a reason why radiometric dating is consistent? If it is fundamentally flawed. I'm online so you can make your case directly.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.
> 
> The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> _*If you want to discuss meteorites ...*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> Thus, it's a young earth after all ....*_
> 
> 
> for what has been, 38 (_found_)  38 / 440 (_should have been_) = .08%
> 
> .08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....
> 
> 
> so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or
> 
> 
> .08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = _*1.16 Billion year old Earth*_ ... according to creationist statistical analysis.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you just proved my point.  I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption.  The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you did not prove creation wrong.  What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence.  Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics.  They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion.  Compare the two theories.  It's more likely it was a supernatural event.
> 
> After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis.  (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)  Again, creation is the more likely explanation.  Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened.  There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science.  The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries.  The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution.  I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved.  It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe.  Nothing is further from the truth.  I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.
Click to expand...


Not to my satisfaction, but whatever.  I've answered most of your questions if not all.  We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error?  Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results.  If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid.  What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error.  Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years.  Not only that, there was soft tissue inside.  (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.)  Why won't you accept that as valid?  The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine.  While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying.  You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp RD being done in a different light.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly
> The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.
> Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
> The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions.  Nothing to back it up.  Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims.  I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample.  It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils.  They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers.  Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?  Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time.  That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that.  Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories?  If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.
> 
> The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make.  At least, he's honest.  If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids.  Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across.  But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period.  Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> _*If you want to discuss meteorites ...*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> Thus, it's a young earth after all ....*_
> 
> 
> for what has been, 38 (_found_)  38 / 440 (_should have been_) = .08%
> 
> .08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....
> 
> 
> so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or
> 
> 
> .08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = _*1.16 Billion year old Earth*_ ... according to creationist statistical analysis.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you just proved my point.  I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption.  The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you did not prove creation wrong.  What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence.  Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics.  They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion.  Compare the two theories.  It's more likely it was a supernatural event.
> 
> After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis.  (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)  Again, creation is the more likely explanation.  Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened.  There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science.  The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries.  The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution.  I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved.  It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe.  Nothing is further from the truth.  I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)




evidence for the _mechanism_ used during the process of evolution that allow for controlled change - and that transition is _not_ required but that the stored process can be activated at its conclusion to create from one parent to an entirely different (new) offspring that then is self reproducible discarding the previous characteristics of its parent.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> _*If you want to discuss meteorites ...*_
> 
> 
> _*
> 
> 
> Thus, it's a young earth after all ....*_
> 
> 
> for what has been, 38 (_found_)  38 / 440 (_should have been_) = .08%
> 
> .08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....
> 
> 
> so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or
> 
> 
> .08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = _*1.16 Billion year old Earth*_ ... according to creationist statistical analysis.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, you just proved my point.  I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption.  The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you did not prove creation wrong.  What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence.  Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics.  They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion.  Compare the two theories.  It's more likely it was a supernatural event.
> 
> After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis.  (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)  Again, creation is the more likely explanation.  Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened.  There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science.  The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries.  The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution.  I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved.  It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe.  Nothing is further from the truth.  I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to my satisfaction, but whatever.  I've answered most of your questions if not all.  We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error?  Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results.  If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid.  What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error.  Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years.  Not only that, there was soft tissue inside.  (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.)  Why won't you accept that as valid?  The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine.  While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying.  You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.
Click to expand...

You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them? And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, you just proved my point.  I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption.  The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you did not prove creation wrong.  What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence.  Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics.  They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion.  Compare the two theories.  It's more likely it was a supernatural event.
> 
> After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis.  (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)  Again, creation is the more likely explanation.  Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened.  There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science.  The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries.  The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution.  I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved.  It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe.  Nothing is further from the truth.  I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to my satisfaction, but whatever.  I've answered most of your questions if not all.  We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error?  Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results.  If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid.  What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error.  Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years.  Not only that, there was soft tissue inside.  (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.)  Why won't you accept that as valid?  The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine.  While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying.  You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.
Click to expand...


Huh?  I think you're mixing apples and oranges.  Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened?  It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted.  They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you did not prove creation wrong.  What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence.  Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics.  They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion.  Compare the two theories.  It's more likely it was a supernatural event.
> 
> After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis.  (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)  Again, creation is the more likely explanation.  Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened.  There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science.  The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries.  The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution.  I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved.  It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe.  Nothing is further from the truth.  I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to my satisfaction, but whatever.  I've answered most of your questions if not all.  We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error?  Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results.  If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid.  What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error.  Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years.  Not only that, there was soft tissue inside.  (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.)  Why won't you accept that as valid?  The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine.  While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying.  You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  I think you're mixing apples and oranges.  Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened?  It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted.  They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
Click to expand...

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



The lack of an explanation from science does not prove the existence of God. That is a huge logical fallacy. Ancient cultures had rain gods, sun gods, etc, because they didn't understand what made rain or sunshine. if  any unexplained event was proof of God, then what happens to that God when science does explain it?


----------



## MaryL

So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you did not prove creation wrong.  What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence.  Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics.  They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion.  Compare the two theories.  It's more likely it was a supernatural event.
> 
> After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis.  (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.)  Again, creation is the more likely explanation.  Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened.  There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science.  The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries.  The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution.  I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved.  It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe.  Nothing is further from the truth.  I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.
> 
> 
> 
> I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to my satisfaction, but whatever.  I've answered most of your questions if not all.  We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error?  Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results.  If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid.  What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error.  Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years.  Not only that, there was soft tissue inside.  (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.)  Why won't you accept that as valid?  The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine.  While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying.  You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  I think you're mixing apples and oranges.  Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened?  It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted.  They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
> These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????
Click to expand...


They do not explain this as there was C-14 remaining to date.  Again, it shows their preconceived notions.


----------



## james bond

MaryL said:


> So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?



No process made God.  God is timeless, ageless and omnipotent being.


----------



## MaryL

james bond said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No process made God.  God is timeless, ageless and omnipotent being.
Click to expand...

Well maybe, but maybe But perhaps the universe always existed and didn't need a creator, either.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered every single of your objections, you haven't answered any of mine. Tell me a theory that explains why every radiometric dating measurement would come up with the same CONSISTENT error? Some are performed on the same sample even. And if you are gonna say 'scientist suppress any inconsistencies' I want proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to my satisfaction, but whatever.  I've answered most of your questions if not all.  We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error?  Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results.  If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid.  What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error.  Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years.  Not only that, there was soft tissue inside.  (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.)  Why won't you accept that as valid?  The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine.  While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying.  You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  I think you're mixing apples and oranges.  Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened?  It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted.  They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
> These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do not explain this as there was C-14 remaining to date.  Again, it shows their preconceived notions.
Click to expand...

I showed you actual measurements using SEVERAL different methods and locations. Explain How the result is always the same???????????? Anything, a far fetched hypothesis instead of deflections.


----------



## james bond

MaryL said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No process made God.  God is timeless, ageless and omnipotent being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well maybe, but maybe But perhaps the universe always existed and didn't need a creator, either.
Click to expand...


That theory's been rendered pseudoscience as astronomers Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble found the universe expanding.  The creator is the best explanation as its alternative, random naturalistic processes, is lacking.  The timeless and ageless qualities being applied to ourselves are difficult to comprehend in this life unless you have faith and believe in another.  You only live twice.


----------



## BreezeWood

MaryL said:


> So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?


.


MaryL said:


> Why bother?




if your Spirit make it to the Everlasting - why not have your Spirit be there when only one side Triumph of Good vs Evil is allowed admission - satan is dead is a clue - The Almighty is simply in charge. there are as many god's as may make that rank and for yourself maybe just start as a labourer ... good luck

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to my satisfaction, but whatever.  I've answered most of your questions if not all.  We've discussed RD at least twice now, but what do you want to define as error?  Radiometric dating is not wrong in its chemical analysis, but in the assumptions it makes in interpreting the results.  If the results do not fit a certain time period, then the results are tossed out as invalid.  What they should do is toss out all of the results as being in error.  Creationists used carbon-14 dating on dinosaur fossils "millions of years" old an it came up with 40,000 years.  Not only that, there was soft tissue inside.  (A few secular scientists did this, too, and found the same.)  Why won't you accept that as valid?  The chemical analysis was done by the best carbon-14 dating company in the US, so the analysis should be fine.  While I laid this out previously, I did not think it occurred to you what I have been saying.  You can understand Cosmos, but can't grasp more difficult arguments being presented to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  I think you're mixing apples and oranges.  Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened?  It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted.  They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
> These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do not explain this as there was C-14 remaining to date.  Again, it shows their preconceived notions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I showed you actual measurements using SEVERAL different methods and locations. Explain How the result is always the same???????????? Anything, a far fetched hypothesis instead of deflections.
Click to expand...


They aren't equal or equivalent.  They only are made to fit a range which you call the same.  The others are discarded.  Look up how calibration is done with RD companies.  I answer your questions, but you have no answers for mine.


----------



## james bond

I do not think I'll be getting answers to my questions from the evos and atheists here anytime soon.  Basically, the evos can't prove the age of the earth because radiometric dates of millions or billions of years are not true ages.  The creation scientists have ways to show the age of the earth without making erroneous assumptions in radiometric dating, some of wihich has been discussed already such as not enough sediment on the sea floor, too few supernova remnants, not enough Stone Age skeletons, Ayers Rock (secular geologists cannot explain), Guy Bethault experiments, Mt. St. Helens and more.

*History is too short.*

According to evolutionists, Stone Age _Homo sapiens_ existed for _190,000 years_ before beginning to make written records about *4,000 to 5,000 years* ago.  Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.1   Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history?  The biblical time scale is much more likely.2


Marshack, A., Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, _National Geographic_ *147*:64-89 (January 1975).
Dritt, J. O., Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, _Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism_, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73-78


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, um what made God? Don't mean to sound impertinent. God came from somewhere. And then what made THAT? and so on and so on, Why bother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No process made God.  God is timeless, ageless and omnipotent being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well maybe, but maybe But perhaps the universe always existed and didn't need a creator, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That theory's been rendered pseudoscience as astronomers Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble found the universe expanding.  The creator is the best explanation as its alternative, random naturalistic processes, is lacking.  The timeless and ageless qualities being applied to ourselves are difficult to comprehend in this life unless you have faith and believe in another.  You only live twice.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> That theory's been rendered pseudoscience as astronomers Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble found the universe expanding.




Boomerang Theory

at the moment of Singularity all matter is expelled at a _finite angle_ - the angles trajectory will in the very distant future return all matter to their point of origin at the same time - reproducing the compaction that will begin the process for a new cycle to begin.

the celestial bodies will disappear from the night sky at the apex of deflection only to begin reemerging as their angles bring them back together again.

.


----------



## forkup

james bond said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown me any link to the carbon 14 measurements but I have shown you a link to the scientist who found the soft tissue. So the result are based on wrong assumptions and are consistent no matter, what rock, what location, what isotope you use. But it is still an error? How can this be I am still waiting for ANY hypothesis you have how this could be true. You can explain away 1 sample but how do you explain all of them. And btw in favor of something you have no substantiating proof on. The bible doesn't confirm science at best it is used to somehow interpret itself to fit modern science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  I think you're mixing apples and oranges.  Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened?  It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted.  They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
> These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do not explain this as there was C-14 remaining to date.  Again, it shows their preconceived notions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I showed you actual measurements using SEVERAL different methods and locations. Explain How the result is always the same???????????? Anything, a far fetched hypothesis instead of deflections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't equal or equivalent.  They only are made to fit a range which you call the same.  The others are discarded.  Look up how calibration is done with RD companies.  I answer your questions, but you have no answers for mine.
Click to expand...

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation.
This was in the last link. So when you say I didn't answer you mean "I didn't read it".


----------



## Clement

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



If God didn't exist it would be necessary for atheists to create Him so they could have someone to hate.


----------



## BreezeWood

Clement said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God didn't exist it would be necessary for atheists to create Him so they could have someone to hate.
Click to expand...

.


Clement said:


> If God didn't exist it would be necessary for atheists to create Him so they could have someone to hate.




very far from the truth but we do know what kind of people will write a book to believe in rather than accept the challenge of life irregardless the hazard of not having false pretenses to hide behind ... as history is their witness.

.


----------



## james bond

forkup said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  I think you're mixing apples and oranges.  Here's the carbon-14 dating and guess what happened?  It was rejected by the evos as obvious error in the data when they never looked at the data nor the researchers contacted.  They still can't past their prejudices and preconceived notions of ToE.
> 
> Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones
> 
> 
> 
> Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE
> These people explain it all. My question remains. If it is an error why is it consisent????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do not explain this as there was C-14 remaining to date.  Again, it shows their preconceived notions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I showed you actual measurements using SEVERAL different methods and locations. Explain How the result is always the same???????????? Anything, a far fetched hypothesis instead of deflections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't equal or equivalent.  They only are made to fit a range which you call the same.  The others are discarded.  Look up how calibration is done with RD companies.  I answer your questions, but you have no answers for mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
> 
> Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation.
> This was in the last link. So when you say I didn't answer you mean "I didn't read it".
Click to expand...


Last point first, you must've not read or comprehended over 50% of what I wrote.  If you could answer my questions, then you would have read and provided it since that is what you did for the others.  I do not think that most creationists and I are unreasonable people.  If science finds error in our thinking or results, then we would use rd.  Right now, we probably use rd just to check with your findings.  We do use carbon-14 dating on organic samples and compare them with current atmosperic levels.  Where we think that there is significant difference in the atmosphere is with pre-flood levels.  Also, one has to be careful not to make false assumptions such as the past levels were the same as today.    .

And your argument only backs what I have been saying and that evos make WRONG assumptions.  There was carbon remaining and it provided the dates less than 40K years old.  Thus, the evos tossed results out as data error even though they did not investigate (more assumptions).  If the results are not in the EXPECTED range of evolution's millions of years, then the results are tossed as being in error.  They have gotten some samples far removed from where the actual fossil was found in order to make the data fit their preconceived results.  My contention is all of those dates should be tossed because they're all wrong.


----------



## james bond

Here is an example of a process that happens and science cannot explain it, but the Bible does. 

"*Powerful Cosmic Rays*
Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity has been instrumental in the world of science for many reasons. One of those reasons is its application to the GZK Limit. The GZK Limit sets a proposed ceiling on how powerful cosmic rays can be when they hit Earth and filter through our atmosphere. However, scientists across the ocean at the Akeno Observatory of Japan have found powerful cosmic rays that have routinely blown through this ceiling. The source of these powerful rays has never been identified and further research has come up dry when trying to get an answer. Surely, there’s no Marvin the Martian pointing his gun at our planet. So what’s the deal? Activities like this remind us that while we have come so far, there is just so very far to go."

16 Amazing Mysteries that Science Can't Explain | Page 10 of 25 | DailyForest

The creationists explain:

"However, creationists argue that these dramatic fluctuations occurred during the post-Flood Ice Age. Thus, within a creationist framework, these dramatic fluctuations occurred as a result of a unique, non-repeatable (Genesis 9:11–16) catastrophic event. Hence a biblical worldview helps to guard against ‘panic’ over possible future changes in climate.

Another reason for a judicious approach to this issue is the fact that a major source of uncertainty in climate modelling is a lack of understanding of cloud behaviour.
Another reason for a judicious approach to this issue is the fact that a major source of uncertainty in climate modelling is a lack of understanding of cloud behaviour.3 Hence a better understanding of the microscopic physical processes occurring within clouds is essential in order to construct theoretical models that accurately predict the amount of warming that may be occurring.4 Predictions about future climate change are based heavily upon computer modelling, and there is a very real possibility that climate models are not taking into account all the relevant physics. Obviously, such a failure will be a source of error in climate predictions.

In particular, there has been considerable recent interest in the possibility that cosmic rays could somehow be affecting weather and climate. A leaked early draft of the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report’ includes a discussion of a possible cosmic ray-weather/climate connection.5 Since the final version of the report will likely discuss this possible link, it seems appropriate to now discuss possible mechanisms behind such a connection.

There are at least two other reasons that such a link might be of interest to creationists. First, although no obvious ‘worldview’ issues are involved in the ‘global warming’ controversy (one could presumably be an orthodox Christian and still believe in catastrophic man-made global warming), there does seem to be a ‘spiritual’ component to this issue. For instance, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has now made ‘climate change’ a priority issue, in addition to its opposition to creation science and the Intelligent Design movement.6 Second, a convincing cosmic ray-weather/climate link might help to explain the severity of European winters during the coldest part of the so-called ‘Little Ice Age’ (~AD 1350–1885). In my opinion, such a plausible link _has_ been proposed. Although the ‘Little Ice Age’ was not caused by a global flood, as was the post-Flood Ice Age, Klevberg and Oard have noted that a better understanding of the ‘Little Ice Age’ might result in improved understanding of the post-Flood Ice Age.7 For these reasons, _J. Creation_ readers are likely to find this to be a topic of interest."

...

"Hence, there are two main theories as to the manner in which cosmic rays could affect weather and climate. One of the main differences between the CMAS and IMN mechanisms is that the IMN mechanism focuses entirely on cosmic rays, whereas the CMAS mechanism regards cosmic rays as only one of five different inputs which modulate the charge density on cloud droplets and aerosols via changes in the fair-weather current density Jz. Apparent difficulties with the IMN mechanism were discussed in this article, and a second article33 discusses apparent difficulties with the CMAS mechanism."

Linking cosmic rays to weather and climate - creation.com


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> Hence a better understanding of the microscopic physical processes occurring within clouds is essential in order to construct theoretical models that accurately predict the amount of warming that may be occurring.4





james bond said:


> it seems appropriate to now discuss possible mechanisms behind such a connection.




the creationist has no problem discussing the mechanisms for their contrivances ... but a theoretical explanation for evolutionary change somehow escapes their profound need to know.


pre and post "flood" world event - -....

.


----------



## Clement

BreezeWood said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God didn't exist it would be necessary for atheists to create Him so they could have someone to hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God didn't exist it would be necessary for atheists to create Him so they could have someone to hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> very far from the truth but we do know what kind of people will write a book to believe in rather than accept the challenge of life irregardless the hazard of not having false pretenses to hide behind ... as history is their witness.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Whatever that's supposed to mean....


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence a better understanding of the microscopic physical processes occurring within clouds is essential in order to construct theoretical models that accurately predict the amount of warming that may be occurring.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it seems appropriate to now discuss possible mechanisms behind such a connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the creationist has no problem discussing the mechanisms for their contrivances ... but a theoretical explanation for evolutionary change somehow escapes their profound need to know.
> 
> 
> pre and post "flood" world event - -....
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I am telling you like it was and is.  Science backs it up.


----------



## james bond

Creationists believe in the truth and using science to help seek the truth in order to demonstrate the glory of God. That shows that God exists.

Yesterday, I found proof that we could not have evolved from chimpanzees. CASE CLOSED. There is no reason for apes to start bipedalism. They were already efficient with their own locomotion. Since humans are bipedal, we can't climb trees very well. We are limited in our locomotion, so we end up building products to help us with it.  I was thinking about rock climbing and tree climbing and this is the type of gear one has to get.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence a better understanding of the microscopic physical processes occurring within clouds is essential in order to construct theoretical models that accurately predict the amount of warming that may be occurring.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it seems appropriate to now discuss possible mechanisms behind such a connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the creationist has no problem discussing the mechanisms for their contrivances ... but a theoretical explanation for evolutionary change somehow escapes their profound need to know.
> 
> 
> pre and post "flood" world event - -....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am telling you like it was and is.  Science backs it up.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> I am telling you like it was and is. Science backs it up.



_*
Science backs it up ...

*_
the flood or your scriptures, don't be confused the flood does not authenticate your book only the providence of the events occurrence.

all the Garden's beings at that time were purged however misconstrued your book placates to humanity.

the Triumph is sought and required for all its inhabitants to prosper in the Everlasting.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
at least explain how destroying evil (humans) can be accomplished by the killing of (innocent) animals at the same time is not in itself evil.
_*

"Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

*_
is this your quid pro quo - good luck, loser.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence a better understanding of the microscopic physical processes occurring within clouds is essential in order to construct theoretical models that accurately predict the amount of warming that may be occurring.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> it seems appropriate to now discuss possible mechanisms behind such a connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the creationist has no problem discussing the mechanisms for their contrivances ... but a theoretical explanation for evolutionary change somehow escapes their profound need to know.
> 
> 
> pre and post "flood" world event - -....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am telling you like it was and is.  Science backs it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am telling you like it was and is. Science backs it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> Science backs it up ...
> 
> *_
> the flood or your scriptures, don't be confused the flood does not authenticate your book only the providence of the events occurrence.
> 
> all the Garden's beings at that time were purged however misconstrued your book placates to humanity.
> 
> the Triumph is sought and required for all its inhabitants to prosper in the Everlasting.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


jb listens and knows how to avoid the flood (local).






Isn't this the evidence that God exists?  No global warming.  No anthropogenic climate change.  We already had the worst God-made climate change in Noah's Flood.  God promised there won't be another by the rainbow.  You missed all of it in the post I made weeks ago of the rainbow at Ark Encounter.

So, don't worry about anthropogenic climate change, be happy.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> at least explain how destroying evil (humans) can be accomplished by the killing of (innocent) animals at the same time is not in itself evil.
> _*
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> *_
> is this your quid pro quo - good luck, loser.
> 
> .



We were made stewards over them.  Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards.  They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> at least explain how destroying evil (humans) can be accomplished by the killing of (innocent) animals at the same time is not in itself evil.
> _*
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> *_
> is this your quid pro quo - good luck, loser.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them.  Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards.  They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
Click to expand...

.



james bond said:


> God promised there won't be another by the rainbow.



and you missed my post what that meant.





james bond said:


> We were made stewards over them. Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards. They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.



forkup is right, there is no objectivity to you at all - that passage is where I could READ no further, I am happy with the spoken religion as authentic than your written one, how convenient PAPYRUS sortof the whiteout for their beliefs they were afraid to put to stone ...

_*
They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds ...
*_
you're not very bright at all, the rainbow means in the END, everyone will be the same that's why there will be the Final Judgement - if that side is the one then you to will be punished for your failure - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other will prevail.

*
We were made stewards over them ...
*
I've suggested for others to join the hungry Lion in a room and lock the door, oh I'll bring my rifle ... ha ha

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> at least explain how destroying evil (humans) can be accomplished by the killing of (innocent) animals at the same time is not in itself evil.
> _*
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> *_
> is this your quid pro quo - good luck, loser.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them.  Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards.  They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God promised there won't be another by the rainbow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you missed my post what that meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them. Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards. They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forkup is right, there is no objectivity to you at all - that passage is where I could READ no further, I am happy with the spoken religion as authentic than your written one, how convenient PAPYRUS sortof the whiteout for their beliefs they were afraid to put to stone ...
> 
> _*
> They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds ...
> *_
> you're not very bright at all, the rainbow means in the END, everyone will be the same that's why there will be the Final Judgement - if that side is the one then you to will be punished for your failure - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other will prevail.
> 
> *
> We were made stewards over them ...
> *
> I've suggested for others to join the hungry Lion in a room and lock the door, oh I'll bring my rifle ... ha ha
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Too many pages to count, but you, forkup and the rest of the evos and atheists missed the main points as usual.  No wonder you guys are usually wrong and have no answers.  Several can't explain evolution in a cogent manner, but yet believe it's scientific theory and more.  People can't believe most people believed in creation before and during the 1800s.  At least, I can explain evolution and have compared both worldviews.  Creation is complete.  I think you guys will fall asleep, wake up and see a guy with your face.  What does this mean?  Roofie!!!  That's in this life.  Who knows what else is in store in the great beyond?

Furthermore, you can have all your mutations, GM products and be sold new GM products to have a "healthier and longer life."  That's why you believe in evolution and who pays the bills at the universities and government scientific institutions like the Smithsonian.  They don't want you to live a long time.  People have and will continue to have much shorter lives.  I'll stay natural and stay away from mutation and mutated products and live to 120. 

This will be my last post for a while.  It's not that interesting talking with people who watch Cosmos and think that's science.  You may as well have Jack Chick explain it to you.  Ha ha.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> at least explain how destroying evil (humans) can be accomplished by the killing of (innocent) animals at the same time is not in itself evil.
> _*
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> *_
> is this your quid pro quo - good luck, loser.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them.  Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards.  They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God promised there won't be another by the rainbow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you missed my post what that meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them. Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards. They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forkup is right, there is no objectivity to you at all - that passage is where I could READ no further, I am happy with the spoken religion as authentic than your written one, how convenient PAPYRUS sortof the whiteout for their beliefs they were afraid to put to stone ...
> 
> _*
> They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds ...
> *_
> you're not very bright at all, the rainbow means in the END, everyone will be the same that's why there will be the Final Judgement - if that side is the one then you to will be punished for your failure - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other will prevail.
> 
> *
> We were made stewards over them ...
> *
> I've suggested for others to join the hungry Lion in a room and lock the door, oh I'll bring my rifle ... ha ha
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many pages to count, but you, forkup and the rest of the evos and atheists missed the main points as usual.  No wonder you guys are usually wrong and have no answers.  Several can't explain evolution in a cogent manner, but yet believe it's scientific theory and more.  People can't believe most people believed in creation before and during the 1800s.  At least, I can explain evolution and have compared both worldviews.  Creation is complete.  I think you guys will fall asleep, wake up and see a guy with your face.  What does this mean?  Roofie!!!  That's in this life.  Who knows what else is in store in the great beyond?
> 
> Furthermore, you can have all your mutations, GM products and be sold new GM products to have a "healthier and longer life."  That's why you believe in evolution and who pays the bills at the universities and government scientific institutions like the Smithsonian.  They don't want you to live a long time.  People have and will continue to have much shorter lives.  I'll stay natural and stay away from mutation and mutated products and live to 120.
> 
> This will be my last post for a while.  It's not that interesting talking with people who watch Cosmos and think that's science.  You may as well have Jack Chick explain it to you.  Ha ha.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> People can't believe most people believed in creation before and during the 1800s.










*Charles Robert Darwin: *February 12, 1809 - April 19 1882 (aged 73)
_*
" By the 1870s, the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. "*_


the biblists met their match and lost - the fundamental issue based on their erroneously written genesis, it is up to them to redirect their scriptures to accommodate the facts relating to the "Great Beyond" - something you (bond) are helplessly unwilling to do.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> at least explain how destroying evil (humans) can be accomplished by the killing of (innocent) animals at the same time is not in itself evil.
> _*
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> *_
> is this your quid pro quo - good luck, loser.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them.  Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards.  They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God promised there won't be another by the rainbow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you missed my post what that meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them. Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards. They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forkup is right, there is no objectivity to you at all - that passage is where I could READ no further, I am happy with the spoken religion as authentic than your written one, how convenient PAPYRUS sortof the whiteout for their beliefs they were afraid to put to stone ...
> 
> _*
> They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds ...
> *_
> you're not very bright at all, the rainbow means in the END, everyone will be the same that's why there will be the Final Judgement - if that side is the one then you to will be punished for your failure - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other will prevail.
> 
> *
> We were made stewards over them ...
> *
> I've suggested for others to join the hungry Lion in a room and lock the door, oh I'll bring my rifle ... ha ha
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many pages to count, but you, forkup and the rest of the evos and atheists missed the main points as usual.  No wonder you guys are usually wrong and have no answers.  Several can't explain evolution in a cogent manner, but yet believe it's scientific theory and more.  People can't believe most people believed in creation before and during the 1800s.  At least, I can explain evolution and have compared both worldviews.  Creation is complete.  I think you guys will fall asleep, wake up and see a guy with your face.  What does this mean?  Roofie!!!  That's in this life.  Who knows what else is in store in the great beyond?
> 
> Furthermore, you can have all your mutations, GM products and be sold new GM products to have a "healthier and longer life."  That's why you believe in evolution and who pays the bills at the universities and government scientific institutions like the Smithsonian.  They don't want you to live a long time.  People have and will continue to have much shorter lives.  I'll stay natural and stay away from mutation and mutated products and live to 120.
> 
> This will be my last post for a while.  It's not that interesting talking with people who watch Cosmos and think that's science.  You may as well have Jack Chick explain it to you.  Ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can't believe most people believed in creation before and during the 1800s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Charles Robert Darwin: *February 12, 1809 - April 19 1882 (aged 73)
> _*
> " By the 1870s, the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. "*_
> 
> 
> the biblists met their match and lost - the fundamental issue based on their erroneously written genesis, it is up to them to redirect their scriptures to accommodate the facts relating to the "Great Beyond" - something you (bond) are helplessly unwilling to do.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I am part of the God squad.  Membership is based on those WILLING instead of experience, talent or skills although possessing those traits like I can't hurt.  What's important is one is WILLING to serve God.  That's it.

Otherwise, you just may get my retort to "evolution as a fact."  Smell you later Breezy boy.  I'm out.


----------



## james bond

edthecynic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
Click to expand...


You're wrong, but think you're joking..  Your answer is not even close.



Socialist said:


> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.



It's not stupid shit as it will determine everything.  People's worldview will ultimately lead to the end.  

No on created God.  God is timeless, spaceless and omnipotent (Kalam's Cosmological Argument).  If God exists, then He destroyed our world before in around 1600 years.  The ancient people made Him angry in that amount of time (God is supposed to be slow to anger).

Man didn't create the concept of God as some people like to believe.  Man created evolution.  Evo scientists will not peer-review the God Theory or the supernatural.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> the biblists met their match and lost - the fundamental issue based on their erroneously written genesis, it is up to them to redirect their scriptures to accommodate the facts relating to the "Great Beyond" - something you (bond) are helplessly unwilling to do.
> 
> .



There is no easy way to put it BreezeWood, but you are doomed.  You're on the path to the underworld.  The Bible states it as fact.

Blasphemy gets you the worst level in my opinion.  Unless you change.  Oh well, another one bites the dust.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, but think you're joking..  Your answer is not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not stupid shit as it will determine everything.  People's worldview will ultimately lead to the end.
> 
> No on created God.  God is timeless, spaceless and omnipotent (Kalam's Cosmological Argument).  If God exists, then He destroyed our world before in around 1600 years.  The ancient people made Him angry in that amount of time (God is supposed to be slow to anger).
> 
> Man didn't create the concept of God as some people like to believe.  Man created evolution.  Evo scientists will not peer-review the God Theory or the supernatural.
Click to expand...

No one created the universe. It is timeless. No beginning and no end. 

No need for a god


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, but think you're joking..  Your answer is not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not stupid shit as it will determine everything.  People's worldview will ultimately lead to the end.
> 
> No on created God.  God is timeless, spaceless and omnipotent (Kalam's Cosmological Argument).  If God exists, then He destroyed our world before in around 1600 years.  The ancient people made Him angry in that amount of time (God is supposed to be slow to anger).
> 
> Man didn't create the concept of God as some people like to believe.  Man created evolution.  Evo scientists will not peer-review the God Theory or the supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one created the universe. It is timeless. No beginning and no end.
> 
> No need for a god
Click to expand...


Sorry, sealybobo, but you missed the discussion of the Steady State Theory and much more stuff of importance.  It has been rendered pseudoscience by the Big Bang Theory.  It was rendered as pseudoscience by God and Genesis, but the current batch of scientists in power will not peer-review Bible-based or supernatural theories.  Creation scientists have peer-reviewed the works of other creation scientists which is the best one can do.

There is a need for God is the creator, i.e. we would not be here if not for Him.  Also, He loves us and helps us.  He has already provided a way to be saved by sacrificing His only Son.  He is the final judge.  There is no need for evolution which is something man created in order to show there is no need for God.  However, God gave you free will to choose between the choices so that's why the differing worldviews exist.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, but think you're joking..  Your answer is not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not stupid shit as it will determine everything.  People's worldview will ultimately lead to the end.
> 
> No on created God.  God is timeless, spaceless and omnipotent (Kalam's Cosmological Argument).  If God exists, then He destroyed our world before in around 1600 years.  The ancient people made Him angry in that amount of time (God is supposed to be slow to anger).
> 
> Man didn't create the concept of God as some people like to believe.  Man created evolution.  Evo scientists will not peer-review the God Theory or the supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one created the universe. It is timeless. No beginning and no end.
> 
> No need for a god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, sealybobo, but you missed the discussion of the Steady State Theory and much more stuff of importance.  It has been rendered pseudoscience by the Big Bang Theory.  It was rendered as pseudoscience by God and Genesis, but the current batch of scientists in power will not peer-review Bible-based or supernatural theories.  Creation scientists have peer-reviewed the works of other creation scientists which is the best one can do.
> 
> There is a need for God is the creator, i.e. we would not be here if not for Him.  Also, He loves us and helps us.  He has already provided a way to be saved by sacrificing His only Son.  He is the final judge.  There is no need for evolution which is something man created in order to show there is no need for God.  However, God gave you free will to choose between the choices so that's why the differing worldviews exist.
Click to expand...

No x 9.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> There is no easy way to put it BreezeWood, but you are doomed. You're on the path to the underworld. The Bible states it as fact.





james bond said:


> He (they have) has already provided a way to be saved by sacrificing His only Son.





I like how you phrased how the Almighty sacrificed their son [sic] but that is not christianity, christianity not Jesus states otherwise .... so you too are certainly doomed. by your book.


_Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani_ .- . *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
*

by the spoken religion - "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" - physically spoken by Jesus, is the final scene for Jesus of Nazareth and would be for the religious the beginning for finding by themselves the true answers set forth by the Tempest the conquest and victory achieving The Triumph of Good vs Evill that will have only one conclusion in the end.

the bible has in it messages used by the spoken religion as the bible is derived from it however the two will never be the same as the bible is rendered mute by those that have failed in their mission to search for the Truth over the fallacy they have found it - Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani - you are a dead end Goldfinger happily ending your life taking everyone with you to suddenly cease to exist.

.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kick started the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, but think you're joking..  Your answer is not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not stupid shit as it will determine everything.  People's worldview will ultimately lead to the end.
> 
> No on created God.  God is timeless, spaceless and omnipotent (Kalam's Cosmological Argument).  If God exists, then He destroyed our world before in around 1600 years.  The ancient people made Him angry in that amount of time (God is supposed to be slow to anger).
> 
> Man didn't create the concept of God as some people like to believe.  Man created evolution.  Evo scientists will not peer-review the God Theory or the supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one created the universe. It is timeless. No beginning and no end.
> 
> No need for a god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, sealybobo, but you missed the discussion of the Steady State Theory and much more stuff of importance.  It has been rendered pseudoscience by the Big Bang Theory.  It was rendered as pseudoscience by God and Genesis, but the current batch of scientists in power will not peer-review Bible-based or supernatural theories.  Creation scientists have peer-reviewed the works of other creation scientists which is the best one can do.
> 
> There is a need for God is the creator, i.e. we would not be here if not for Him.  Also, He loves us and helps us.  He has already provided a way to be saved by sacrificing His only Son.  He is the final judge.  There is no need for evolution which is something man created in order to show there is no need for God.  However, God gave you free will to choose between the choices so that's why the differing worldviews exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No x 9.
Click to expand...


Then you're in denial x 9.  I'm just a conduit and provided all the answers that are from the Bible.  If we discussed science, then the answers are from creation science.  Science is science, but the evo and atheist scientists gained power and will not peer-review the creation side.  Thus, the creation scientists continue to peer-review their work as well as that of the evos.  It was a battle during the 1800s, but people started to question evolution due to it not providing the answers.  It gave creation another chance and today the church teaches science.  Because people want answers.

I looked at both sides, even gave the website that I used to learn about evolution.  I believed in evolution before, but then realized it did not provide the answers and it was discussed fairly thoroughly here.  The eternal universe was rendered false by a better theory.  The new theory, Big Bang Theory, backs up Genesis except for the creation part.  If the Bible wasn't a book of non-fiction and what evo scientists state today, then it would have fallen by the wayside during the 1800s.  If Lucy was true, then we would know and people would want to see it in the museums.  It wouldn't be treated as something which will just stay in Ethiopia.

No answers from abiogenesis, Big Bang Theory, evolution, global warming and climate change.  Answers from creation, Noah's Flood (biggest climate change ever), and the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no easy way to put it BreezeWood, but you are doomed. You're on the path to the underworld. The Bible states it as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He (they have) has already provided a way to be saved by sacrificing His only Son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you phrased how the Almighty sacrificed their son [sic] but that is not christianity, christianity not Jesus states otherwise .... so you too are certainly doomed. by your book.
> 
> 
> _Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani_ .- . *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
> *
> 
> by the spoken religion - "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" - physically spoken by Jesus, is the final scene for Jesus of Nazareth and would be for the religious the beginning for finding by themselves the true answers set forth by the Tempest the conquest and victory achieving The Triumph of Good vs Evill that will have only one conclusion in the end.
> 
> the bible has in it messages used by the spoken religion as the bible is derived from it however the two will never be the same as the bible is rendered mute by those that have failed in their mission to search for the Truth over the fallacy they have found it - Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani - you are a dead end Goldfinger happily ending your life taking everyone with you to suddenly cease to exist.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're quite mistaken.  I'm not Goldfinger.  I'm Bond.  James Bond.  Ha ha.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no easy way to put it BreezeWood, but you are doomed. You're on the path to the underworld. The Bible states it as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He (they have) has already provided a way to be saved by sacrificing His only Son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you phrased how the Almighty sacrificed their son [sic] but that is not christianity, christianity not Jesus states otherwise .... so you too are certainly doomed. by your book.
> 
> 
> _Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani_ .- . *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
> *
> 
> by the spoken religion - "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" - physically spoken by Jesus, is the final scene for Jesus of Nazareth and would be for the religious the beginning for finding by themselves the true answers set forth by the Tempest the conquest and victory achieving The Triumph of Good vs Evill that will have only one conclusion in the end.
> 
> the bible has in it messages used by the spoken religion as the bible is derived from it however the two will never be the same as the bible is rendered mute by those that have failed in their mission to search for the Truth over the fallacy they have found it - Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani - you are a dead end Goldfinger happily ending your life taking everyone with you to suddenly cease to exist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're quite mistaken.  I'm not Goldfinger.  I'm Bond.  James Bond.  Ha ha.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> You're quite mistaken. I'm not Goldfinger. I'm Bond. James Bond. Ha ha.











that's what all the villains have to say, you have the wrong person .... I'm Bond. James Bond. Ha ha.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no easy way to put it BreezeWood, but you are doomed. You're on the path to the underworld. The Bible states it as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He (they have) has already provided a way to be saved by sacrificing His only Son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you phrased how the Almighty sacrificed their son [sic] but that is not christianity, christianity not Jesus states otherwise .... so you too are certainly doomed. by your book.
> 
> 
> _Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani_ .- . *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
> *
> 
> by the spoken religion - "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" - physically spoken by Jesus, is the final scene for Jesus of Nazareth and would be for the religious the beginning for finding by themselves the true answers set forth by the Tempest the conquest and victory achieving The Triumph of Good vs Evill that will have only one conclusion in the end.
> 
> the bible has in it messages used by the spoken religion as the bible is derived from it however the two will never be the same as the bible is rendered mute by those that have failed in their mission to search for the Truth over the fallacy they have found it - Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani - you are a dead end Goldfinger happily ending your life taking everyone with you to suddenly cease to exist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're quite mistaken.  I'm not Goldfinger.  I'm Bond.  James Bond.  Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're quite mistaken. I'm not Goldfinger. I'm Bond. James Bond. Ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's what all the villains have to say, you have the wrong person .... I'm Bond. James Bond. Ha ha.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Wrong again, BW.  All the real villains think the good guys are bad.  One guy, who seemed smart and educated, thought God was evil based on his reading the Bible.  He had read the entire Bible while I still have not.  

If you're Bond and I'm GF, then how about this for a fantasy scenario?

You:  Do you expect me to talk (hot pinpoint laser about to cut him in half starting at the scrotum VERY SLOWLY)?
Me:  No, I expect you to die (and end up in hell forever in the second life).

Fade to black.


----------



## james bond

Normally, I do not talk about hell because I'm not sure what happens when one actually crosses over and cannot return.  The furthest we can know is from near-death experiences and part of it could be physiological.  I think there is neurology that goes on, too, and this is where the consciousness comes in.  The consciousness may not die, but it lives on.

Those that have the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth will know where to go.  However, those that do not will be in the dark and have to rely on their worldview imho.

Moreover, an evolutionist and atheist pointed me to Jack Chick stating that the evo chart I posted came from his comics.  That's how I discovered Jact Chick's tracts.  In Chick's comics or tracts, he has a penchant for pointing out how the afterlife happens and how Final Judgment occurs.

I do not know whether Chick's views occurs like that, but I do know places like Hades and Lake of Fire exist on Earth.  Is there a relationship between this and the Bible?  Or are they based on myths?  You'll have to decide for yourself.

Hades?





Lake of Fire (shaped like a bowl described in Dante's Inferno)?


----------



## BreezeWood

.
writing the bible without having read it in the eyes of the Almighty would be far better than just having read it. - the spoken religion.

as the religion points out, Noah all that matters is the conclusion - The Triumph of Good vs Evil.

the difference being, no Jesus required.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


james bond said:


> Fade to black.




_*“a basket of deplorable's”*_

_*
Hillary Clinton sparked a controversy Friday night after suggesting half of Donald Trump’s supporters belonged in “a basket of deplorables”*_ _*which she described as consisting of “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it.”

*_
"Fading" - how about just BLACK ... _bond_.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fade to black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*“a basket of deplorable's”*_
> 
> _*
> Hillary Clinton sparked a controversy Friday night after suggesting half of Donald Trump’s supporters belonged in “a basket of deplorables”*_ _*which she described as consisting of “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it.”
> 
> *_
> "Fading" - how about just BLACK ... _bond_.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So now, it's politics.  Your true colors are showing.  Hillary is the most Godless member of the Senate and she should be in jail.  The orange jumpsuit would make her look better.  We can't have a serial statutory rapist in the White House either.

I can't believe I made this in 2007, but it still fits.  Just picture her 9 years older.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> at least explain how destroying evil (humans) can be accomplished by the killing of (innocent) animals at the same time is not in itself evil.
> _*
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> *_
> is this your quid pro quo - good luck, loser.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them.  Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards.  They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God promised there won't be another by the rainbow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you missed my post what that meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them. Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards. They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forkup is right, there is no objectivity to you at all - that passage is where I could READ no further, I am happy with the spoken religion as authentic than your written one, how convenient PAPYRUS sortof the whiteout for their beliefs they were afraid to put to stone ...
> 
> _*
> They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds ...
> *_
> you're not very bright at all, the rainbow means in the END, everyone will be the same that's why there will be the Final Judgement - if that side is the one then you to will be punished for your failure - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other will prevail.
> 
> *
> We were made stewards over them ...
> *
> I've suggested for others to join the hungry Lion in a room and lock the door, oh I'll bring my rifle ... ha ha
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many pages to count, but you, forkup and the rest of the evos and atheists missed the main points as usual.  No wonder you guys are usually wrong and have no answers.  Several can't explain evolution in a cogent manner, but yet believe it's scientific theory and more.  People can't believe most people believed in creation before and during the 1800s.  At least, I can explain evolution and have compared both worldviews.  Creation is complete.  I think you guys will fall asleep, wake up and see a guy with your face.  What does this mean?  Roofie!!!  That's in this life.  Who knows what else is in store in the great beyond?
> 
> Furthermore, you can have all your mutations, GM products and be sold new GM products to have a "healthier and longer life."  That's why you believe in evolution and who pays the bills at the universities and government scientific institutions like the Smithsonian.  They don't want you to live a long time.  People have and will continue to have much shorter lives.  I'll stay natural and stay away from mutation and mutated products and live to 120.
> 
> This will be my last post for a while.  It's not that interesting talking with people who watch Cosmos and think that's science.  You may as well have Jack Chick explain it to you.  Ha ha.
Click to expand...

Proof religious people are insane


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> at least explain how destroying evil (humans) can be accomplished by the killing of (innocent) animals at the same time is not in itself evil.
> _*
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> *_
> is this your quid pro quo - good luck, loser.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them.  Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards.  They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God promised there won't be another by the rainbow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you missed my post what that meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them. Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards. They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forkup is right, there is no objectivity to you at all - that passage is where I could READ no further, I am happy with the spoken religion as authentic than your written one, how convenient PAPYRUS sortof the whiteout for their beliefs they were afraid to put to stone ...
> 
> _*
> They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds ...
> *_
> you're not very bright at all, the rainbow means in the END, everyone will be the same that's why there will be the Final Judgement - if that side is the one then you to will be punished for your failure - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other will prevail.
> 
> *
> We were made stewards over them ...
> *
> I've suggested for others to join the hungry Lion in a room and lock the door, oh I'll bring my rifle ... ha ha
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many pages to count, but you, forkup and the rest of the evos and atheists missed the main points as usual.  No wonder you guys are usually wrong and have no answers.  Several can't explain evolution in a cogent manner, but yet believe it's scientific theory and more.  People can't believe most people believed in creation before and during the 1800s.  At least, I can explain evolution and have compared both worldviews.  Creation is complete.  I think you guys will fall asleep, wake up and see a guy with your face.  What does this mean?  Roofie!!!  That's in this life.  Who knows what else is in store in the great beyond?
> 
> Furthermore, you can have all your mutations, GM products and be sold new GM products to have a "healthier and longer life."  That's why you believe in evolution and who pays the bills at the universities and government scientific institutions like the Smithsonian.  They don't want you to live a long time.  People have and will continue to have much shorter lives.  I'll stay natural and stay away from mutation and mutated products and live to 120.
> 
> This will be my last post for a while.  It's not that interesting talking with people who watch Cosmos and think that's science.  You may as well have Jack Chick explain it to you.  Ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof religious people are insane
Click to expand...


It was for BreezeWood, since he brought up politics.  He just may get Hillary in hell.  Bill catches them and thinks this is my chance to sneak out of the house (not White House).

Liberalism is a mental illness.  The real loonies are on your side.  They're the mass murderers, serial killers, rapists, short eyes and drug/alcohol offenders.  We get the paranoid, schizophrenic, disgruntled and sexually repressed.

You know when Jesus said on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."  It wasn't the physical pain they inflicted, but I think Jesus saw all their lives and their sins flash before him.  That's got to be a lot more painful than the physical.


----------



## james bond

For more of a serious discussion on heaven, hell and the afterlife, the question of an afterlife and heaven and hell has been raised many times and about who got in and who didn't.  This question is too open ended and would get different answers because it would depend on faith, religion and one's interpretation.  For Christians, a better question would be is there an afterlife in the Bible and questions of who got in and who didn't as explained in the Bible.  As I understand it, at first there was no concept of an afterlife in the ancient Hebrew texts.  For example, Moses did not have a concept of an immortal soul, an afterlife or going to heaven after death.  The concepts of an afterlife and heaven and hell are introduced later in what is called eschatology.  Prior to it, we had cosmology in Moses' time.  After it came the eschatology.  Both cosmology and eschatology are what I would consider philosophy.

"To understand this somewhat singular view of the future one needs to get a general grasp of ancient_cosmology_. Cosmology is the theory and lore of how the world or universe is structured. A kind of map or picture of the cosmos, cosmology is a way of naming things and putting them in their proper places.

The ancient Hebrews pictured the universe divided into three parts or realms, as did other civilizations of the period. First, there was the upper realm of the Firmament (Sky) or Heavens, the dwelling place of God and his divine angelic court, as well as the place of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. Here no mortal belonged.*[1]* Then there was the realm of earth below, what the first chapter of Genesis calls “the dry land.” It is the proper human place, shared with all the other forms of plant and animal life–a thoroughly mortal realm. The earth was seen as a flat disk; at the edges were the threatening waters of chaos, held back by the command of God (Gen. 1:9-10; Ps. 104:5-9). Finally, below the earth was the dark realm of the dead, which was called Sheol by the Hebrews and Hades by the Greeks. Psalms 115:16-18 puts it succinctly: “The heavens are Yahweh’s heavens, but the earth he has given to the sons of men. The dead do not praise Yahweh, nor do any that go down into silence. But we [the living] will bless Yahweh from this time forth and for evermore."

...

"Scholars use the term “eschatology” to refer to what they call the “last things,” i.e., the events and realities at the end of history or, more popularly speaking, “the end of the world.” However, this idea of the “end of the world” does not necessarily mean the destruction of the planet. More often it refers to the end of an “age,” following which history takes a dramatic turn for the better. Eschatology addresses these questions: Where is history headed? And what will be its final determination and meaning? Obviously, one is presupposing here that there is some meaning to history and that the end will make it all clear."

You can read the full scholarly text here
What the Bible Says About Death, Afterlife and the Future


----------



## RWS

My big question about "God", is why he ended up hating the dinosaurs so much...

I mean, what the heck could they have possibly done to bring His wrath down upon them and smite them all? After spending so much time creating them and developing them? They must have REALLY pissed Him off because He let us live, and we probably have done waaaaaay much worse in MUCH less time... So it makes me wonder what those asshole dino's did...

I'm sure they deserved it! But it would be nice to know.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> at least explain how destroying evil (humans) can be accomplished by the killing of (innocent) animals at the same time is not in itself evil.
> _*
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> *_
> is this your quid pro quo - good luck, loser.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them.  Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards.  They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God promised there won't be another by the rainbow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you missed my post what that meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were made stewards over them. Yet, there are humans who aren't being good stewards. They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forkup is right, there is no objectivity to you at all - that passage is where I could READ no further, I am happy with the spoken religion as authentic than your written one, how convenient PAPYRUS sortof the whiteout for their beliefs they were afraid to put to stone ...
> 
> _*
> They will be punished at the end for the their misdeeds ...
> *_
> you're not very bright at all, the rainbow means in the END, everyone will be the same that's why there will be the Final Judgement - if that side is the one then you to will be punished for your failure - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other will prevail.
> 
> *
> We were made stewards over them ...
> *
> I've suggested for others to join the hungry Lion in a room and lock the door, oh I'll bring my rifle ... ha ha
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many pages to count, but you, forkup and the rest of the evos and atheists missed the main points as usual.  No wonder you guys are usually wrong and have no answers.  Several can't explain evolution in a cogent manner, but yet believe it's scientific theory and more.  People can't believe most people believed in creation before and during the 1800s.  At least, I can explain evolution and have compared both worldviews.  Creation is complete.  I think you guys will fall asleep, wake up and see a guy with your face.  What does this mean?  Roofie!!!  That's in this life.  Who knows what else is in store in the great beyond?
> 
> Furthermore, you can have all your mutations, GM products and be sold new GM products to have a "healthier and longer life."  That's why you believe in evolution and who pays the bills at the universities and government scientific institutions like the Smithsonian.  They don't want you to live a long time.  People have and will continue to have much shorter lives.  I'll stay natural and stay away from mutation and mutated products and live to 120.
> 
> This will be my last post for a while.  It's not that interesting talking with people who watch Cosmos and think that's science.  You may as well have Jack Chick explain it to you.  Ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof religious people are insane
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was for BreezeWood, since he brought up politics.  He just may get Hillary in hell.  Bill catches them and thinks this is my chance to sneak out of the house (not White House).
> 
> Liberalism is a mental illness.  The real loonies are on your side.  They're the mass murderers, serial killers, rapists, short eyes and drug/alcohol offenders.  We get the paranoid, schizophrenic, disgruntled and sexually repressed.
> 
> You know when Jesus said on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."  It wasn't the physical pain they inflicted, but I think Jesus saw all their lives and their sins flash before him.  That's got to be a lot more painful than the physical.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."




those words if spoken would be forsaken and are a fabrication, who is supposing "they" would be forgiven than everyone as the scribes foolishly imply is possible.

.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> My big question about "God", is why he ended up hating the dinosaurs so much...
> 
> I mean, what the heck could they have possibly done to bring His wrath down upon them and smite them all? After spending so much time creating them and developing them? They must have REALLY pissed Him off because He let us live, and we probably have done waaaaaay much worse in MUCH less time... So it makes me wonder what those asshole dino's did...
> 
> I'm sure they deserved it! But it would be nice to know.



It's in the Bible.  The short answer is most went to heaven, a glorious place for humans and all God's creatures alike.  There everyone will be their PERFECT spiritual selves.  There is supposed to be more, but that is the best I can describe.

The long answer is...

"God sent the Flood as a judgment on mankind’s wickedness. But it wasn’t only human beings who died. Most of the animals were also swept away. Genesis 6:7 states, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Why did God destroy animal life in the Flood, since they were not guilty of sin?

First, it should be noted that God did not destroy _all_ animal life. Two of every kind of unclean animal were placed on the ark, and seven of every clean animal (Genesis 7:1-4). In addition, sea life was not harmed. The destruction included land animals and birds.

God had a plan to recreate. Just as God had created human and animal life in the beginning of time, so now He would recreate human and animal life. Genesis 8 closes with the animals leaving the ark at the beginning a new world. They went with the command to go forth and multiply (Genesis 8:17).

We can assume that, in some way, animal life had become corrupted along with human life. Genesis 6:13 states, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them.” The phrase “all flesh” is used throughout the narrative to include both human and animal life. How was animal life corrupted? This is not explained. Some have suggested the use of animals in sinful, pagan sacrifices as the reason. Others have considered that the violence filling the earth was due, in part, to animals (this would correspond with the theory of large dinosaurs being destroyed by the Flood). Regardless of how the animals became corrupted, God viewed them as part of creation that needed to be recreated.

Another concern was Noah’s welfare. Perhaps the land animals were destroyed so that Noah and his family could live safely after exiting the ark. Eight humans living in a world of unchecked wildlife would have had a slim chance of survival, most likely. But with only the animals on the ark, the ratio of animal life to human life would make living together much safer. God could have chosen a different method, but He chose to save Noah and his family, along with a large boat of animals, to restart life on earth.

Elsewhere in the Old Testament, we see that a person’s sin can contaminate other people or animals at times (e.g., Joshua 7:24-25; Romans 8:19-22). In a ceremonial sense, perhaps, the animals that died in the Flood could be viewed as morally contaminated because of their association with humankind. They were part of that antediluvian, sin-infested world.

In summary, God destroyed many animals in the Flood, but not all of them. In fact, He spared many more animals than He did humans. God chose to recreate using a limited number of animals, sparing only those land animals that He led to the ark. After the Flood, God provided for a safe coexistence between human and animal life."

Why did God also destroy animals in the Flood (Genesis 6-8)?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> My big question about "God", is why he ended up hating the dinosaurs so much...
> 
> I mean, what the heck could they have possibly done to bring His wrath down upon them and smite them all? After spending so much time creating them and developing them? They must have REALLY pissed Him off because He let us live, and we probably have done waaaaaay much worse in MUCH less time... So it makes me wonder what those asshole dino's did...
> 
> I'm sure they deserved it! But it would be nice to know.



One more thing.  God loves.  He does not hate His creation.  God is slow to anger, but He can show His wrath.  However, it's not based on hate.  He wants to forgive.  His hate is for the words and deeds of humans and sin.  Refer to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.  The Bible is unique in that it is a living document.  If one has Faith and decides to believe in God and reads and accepts the Bible, then they find the answers and will be rewarded.


----------



## RWS

So, per the Bible, what did the dinosaurs do to incur His wrath? It is evident what the humans did with their wicked behavior and they deserved their semi-smite, but the dino's leave me scratching my head??? 

Did they, like, have incest... ?


----------



## BreezeWood

RWS said:


> So, per the Bible, what did the dinosaurs do to incur His wrath? It is evident what the humans did with their wicked behavior and they deserved their semi-smite, but the dino's leave me scratching my head???
> 
> Did they, like, have incest... ?


.


RWS said:


> So, per the Bible ....





whether the onset of humanity was the cause for their demise or not there is no doubt that it would have been if it were not so.

T-Rex became a chicken ... unfortunate decision.

what has become extinct was fair play as they all have left the Garden as they found it and bask in the Everlasting, a job well done - that is not the message though for the humanity afflicted with written scriptures that all but doom Almighty's Paradise to an inglorious demise they claim they will themselves however "miraculously" escape. unharmed.

.


----------



## RWS

I think I hear you, but I'm not sure... ;-)

So if I eat chicken tomorrow, should i be worried that i ate outside the garden or ingested evil? Or should I keep my diet to things inside the garden and leave fowl alone? Because chicken = dinosaur, and dino=reptile, and reptile=serpent. So I would fall into the same trap as Eve... eating the offerings of the serpent and spawning human sin all over again, forever....

What is safe to eat? And what if I already ate it, unknowingly? Because that's a huge burden to carry just for going to KFC last night...


----------



## BreezeWood

RWS said:


> I think I hear you, but I'm not sure... ;-)
> 
> So if I eat chicken tomorrow, should i be worried that i ate outside the garden or ingested evil? Or should I keep my diet to things inside the garden and leave fowl alone? Because chicken = dinosaur, and dino=reptile, and reptile=serpent. So I would fall into the same trap as Eve... eating the offerings of the serpent and spawning human sin all over again, forever....
> 
> What is safe to eat? And what if I already ate it, unknowingly? Because that's a huge burden to carry just for going to KFC last night...


.


RWS said:


> So I would fall into the same trap as Eve...




that's obvious, at some point in time everyone is meant with a challenge and how they are prepared makes a difference being real can only help, good luck.

.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> So, per the Bible, what did the dinosaurs do to incur His wrath? It is evident what the humans did with their wicked behavior and they deserved their semi-smite, but the dino's leave me scratching my head???
> 
> Did they, like, have incest... ?



Ha ha.  I think I'll stop here because you're not following what I am saying.  Prolly my fault not explaining it clearly enough.  Thus, the best way I can put is you should follow Jesus and He will provide the answers you seek.  Else you'll continue to believe your worldview and who am I to stop you from that.


----------



## social philosopher

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



I do hear what you're saying. Miracles. Wonderful and magical and all. It's nice. What kicked started the universe? Which theory do you like? Oh sorry never mind. I don't know and my friend neither do you. Why would you imagine that science has the answers to everything. For one thing alone science is still in it's infancy. Or thereabouts. It's way to young to be able to explain many things. This doesn't mean that it can't or won't. But myth and superstition is certainly NOT an answer. Like having none at all. If such a philosophy didn't exist? We wouldn't be cowed second class citizens for one.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, per the Bible, what did the dinosaurs do to incur His wrath? It is evident what the humans did with their wicked behavior and they deserved their semi-smite, but the dino's leave me scratching my head???
> 
> Did they, like, have incest... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I think I'll stop here because you're not following what I am saying.  Prolly my fault not explaining it clearly enough.  Thus, the best way I can put is you should follow Jesus and He will provide the answers you seek.  Else you'll continue to believe your worldview and who am I to stop you from that.
Click to expand...


I think you explained it clearly enough. I'm just asking a question that always put me against "God". Because I think the dinosaurs were very cool, and I believe they actually existed and their bones were not put there by the devil to fool us. And to smite them all, after hundreds of millions of years of development, yet allow us to survive after all the tragedies we have created in the last 6000 years of recorded history, is a very big question that I have. 

And something I would like to hear a rational explanation about...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, per the Bible, what did the dinosaurs do to incur His wrath? It is evident what the humans did with their wicked behavior and they deserved their semi-smite, but the dino's leave me scratching my head???
> 
> Did they, like, have incest... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I think I'll stop here because you're not following what I am saying.  Prolly my fault not explaining it clearly enough.  Thus, the best way I can put is you should follow Jesus and He will provide the answers you seek.  Else you'll continue to believe your worldview and who am I to stop you from that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you explained it clearly enough. I'm just asking a question that always put me against "God". Because I think the dinosaurs were very cool, and I believe they actually existed and their bones were not put there by the devil to fool us. And to smite them all, after hundreds of millions of years of development, yet allow us to survive after all the tragedies we have created in the last 6000 years of recorded history, is a very big question that I have.
> 
> And something I would like to hear a rational explanation about...
Click to expand...


I just found this tee.  Looks pretty cool, huh?  Also, photoshopped another (Live Fast, Die Young) modeled by a Bond Girl to get into the spirit of things .









Since you state that I explained it clearly enough, and now you ask the question that "always put me against "God," I suppose the answer is pretty important to you. 

Before we get into that, can you explain to others as well as yourself why you believe the earth is millions of years old?  Most people can't except because the evos told me so.  Maybe your answer will be so elegant that we do not even have to get into the question that "always put me against "God."

Moreover, if you're trying to answer what the Bible says (from what you read or heard), then I'm not sure you are correct, i.e. things such as dinosaur incest, the subject of incest and age of the earth.


----------



## RWS

Because the reason you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, is based on the fact that Sumerians invented writing 6000 years ago.

But they told of a very different situation than what Christians believe today. They actually wrote a lot of what the OT is based upon, and later got changed by crazy religious people...

Sumerian texts, 6000 years ago, say that there was life before them and they detail a lot about it...

Now, if you think some power-driven person is going to change that fact, to suit some money-making machine... have at it!

I'd love to debate you.


----------



## RWS

Just you though...

Not ur mongering followers, because I won't be able to reply fast enough by myself, and your followers will bully me to submission otherwise. Just you and me. You up to it?

God vs Enki & Enlil

It will be lots of fun and enlightening! 

Let me know and I'll start the thread...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Because the reason you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, is based on the fact that Sumerians invented writing 6000 years ago.
> 
> But they told of a very different situation than what Christians believe today. They actually wrote a lot of what the OT is based upon, and later got changed by crazy religious people...
> 
> Sumerian texts, 6000 years ago, say that there was life before them and they detail a lot about it...
> 
> Now, if you think some power-driven person is going to change that fact, to suit some money-making machine... have at it!
> 
> I'd love to debate you.



I already debated someone else and several others and they got whupped and left.  Give some other believer a chance to rebut the thread.  I'm going to discuss some other thread. 

You already discussed several different topics, except answert my question why do you believe the earth is millions or billions of years old?  Why do you believe the earth is billions of years old?


----------



## RWS

Because it is. Fundamentalist religions cannot change that fact.

So I will show you where your religion came from, and what they actually said. And if you still want to argue about it, then that's when religion becomes dangerous. I have no problem with people of faith. I have problems with fundamentalists that disregard reality for the promotion of their birth-religion. Which you seem to be doing...

So, the invitation is out for you... ;-)


----------



## RWS

And trust me, I'm not like anybody you ever debated before.

Nice job, calling out your legions to defend you, instead of facing me one-on-one! Very typical for a religious leader wannabe. 

But anytime you feel in the mood, let me know. Because religious fanaticism has to stop. And I will show you the way...


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, per the Bible, what did the dinosaurs do to incur His wrath? It is evident what the humans did with their wicked behavior and they deserved their semi-smite, but the dino's leave me scratching my head???
> 
> Did they, like, have incest... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  I think I'll stop here because you're not following what I am saying.  Prolly my fault not explaining it clearly enough.  Thus, the best way I can put is you should follow Jesus and He will provide the answers you seek.  Else you'll continue to believe your worldview and who am I to stop you from that.
Click to expand...

A Muslim told me the same thing only about Allah. Apparently his worldview is identical to yours. And two Mormons approached my dad at the cemetery and according to them Mormonism is where it's at


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> So, per the Bible, what did the dinosaurs do to incur His wrath? It is evident what the humans did with their wicked behavior and they deserved their semi-smite, but the dino's leave me scratching my head???
> 
> Did they, like, have incest... ?


God got tired of dinosaurs and invented a better species to "love"


----------



## RWS

If there is a "God", i'm sure he's tired of these stupid debates about him...


----------



## RWS

So James Bond must be tired of arguing for the One True God. 

I'll tell you what the OTG is... and it's not what you think.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


RWS said:


> Nice job, calling out your legions to defend you, instead of facing me one-on-one!



.......

not sure who those may have been, few with little interest -




RWS said:


> Because religious fanaticism has to stop



that's hard to do when they have no pulse ...

.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Because it is. Fundamentalist religions cannot change that fact.
> 
> So I will show you where your religion came from, and what they actually said. And if you still want to argue about it, then that's when religion becomes dangerous. I have no problem with people of faith. I have problems with fundamentalists that disregard reality for the promotion of their birth-religion. Which you seem to be doing...
> 
> So, the invitation is out for you... ;-)



Sorry, I'll pass on the invite.  You're entitled to your opinions.


----------



## RWS

In poker terms, that's a good fold...


----------



## BreezeWood

RWS said:


> In poker terms, that's a good fold...


.
There are others that just bond ...




RWS said:


> So I will show you where your religion came from, and what they actually said.




that would be interesting, "they" being the Almighty ... anything etched in stone ?

.


----------



## RWS

It's your fantasy, thinking "they" meant the almighty....

I only talk about what the people wrote. Since the almighty lack the ability to write, somehow...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the reason you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, is based on the fact that Sumerians invented writing 6000 years ago.
> 
> But they told of a very different situation than what Christians believe today. They actually wrote a lot of what the OT is based upon, and later got changed by crazy religious people...
> 
> Sumerian texts, 6000 years ago, say that there was life before them and they detail a lot about it...
> 
> Now, if you think some power-driven person is going to change that fact, to suit some money-making machine... have at it!
> 
> I'd love to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated someone else and several others and they got whupped and left.  Give some other believer a chance to rebut the thread.  I'm going to discuss some other thread.
> 
> You already discussed several different topics, except answert my question why do you believe the earth is millions or billions of years old?  Why do you believe the earth is billions of years old?
Click to expand...

It’s not a ‘belief.’


----------



## BreezeWood

RWS said:


> It's your fantasy, thinking "they" meant the almighty....
> 
> I only talk about what the people wrote. Since the almighty lack the ability to write, somehow...


.


RWS said:


> I only talk about what the people wrote. Since the almighty lack the ability to write, somehow...





RWS said:


> ... and what they actually said.





I seriously doubt there has ever been a conversation by anyone with the Almighty that is not to say the path to the Everlasting can not be discovered "without HELP" ...

Antiquity for that reason would have had a better understanding due to proximity but whittled it away giving us the bond's of the world - True to Life, villains.

.


----------



## james bond

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the reason you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, is based on the fact that Sumerians invented writing 6000 years ago.
> 
> But they told of a very different situation than what Christians believe today. They actually wrote a lot of what the OT is based upon, and later got changed by crazy religious people...
> 
> Sumerian texts, 6000 years ago, say that there was life before them and they detail a lot about it...
> 
> Now, if you think some power-driven person is going to change that fact, to suit some money-making machine... have at it!
> 
> I'd love to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated someone else and several others and they got whupped and left.  Give some other believer a chance to rebut the thread.  I'm going to discuss some other thread.
> 
> You already discussed several different topics, except answert my question why do you believe the earth is millions or billions of years old?  Why do you believe the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a ‘belief.’
Click to expand...


If you want to admit it's a lie, it's fine by me ha ha.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

james bond said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the reason you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, is based on the fact that Sumerians invented writing 6000 years ago.
> 
> But they told of a very different situation than what Christians believe today. They actually wrote a lot of what the OT is based upon, and later got changed by crazy religious people...
> 
> Sumerian texts, 6000 years ago, say that there was life before them and they detail a lot about it...
> 
> Now, if you think some power-driven person is going to change that fact, to suit some money-making machine... have at it!
> 
> I'd love to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated someone else and several others and they got whupped and left.  Give some other believer a chance to rebut the thread.  I'm going to discuss some other thread.
> 
> You already discussed several different topics, except answert my question why do you believe the earth is millions or billions of years old?  Why do you believe the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a ‘belief.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to admit it's a lie, it's fine by me ha ha.
Click to expand...

It’s neither a ‘lie’ nor a ‘belief’ – but you’re at liberty to exhibit your willful ignorance.


----------



## james bond

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the reason you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, is based on the fact that Sumerians invented writing 6000 years ago.
> 
> But they told of a very different situation than what Christians believe today. They actually wrote a lot of what the OT is based upon, and later got changed by crazy religious people...
> 
> Sumerian texts, 6000 years ago, say that there was life before them and they detail a lot about it...
> 
> Now, if you think some power-driven person is going to change that fact, to suit some money-making machine... have at it!
> 
> I'd love to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated someone else and several others and they got whupped and left.  Give some other believer a chance to rebut the thread.  I'm going to discuss some other thread.
> 
> You already discussed several different topics, except answert my question why do you believe the earth is millions or billions of years old?  Why do you believe the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a ‘belief.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to admit it's a lie, it's fine by me ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s neither a ‘lie’ nor a ‘belief’ – but you’re at liberty to exhibit your willful ignorance.
Click to expand...


Instead of an answer, now you claim it's my willful ignorance.  That sure sounds like you are the one who is ignorant or else you would have answered my question.

I'm not sure what you're saying when you do not state why you *believe* the earth is billions of years old?   My original question still stands.  

What the earth being billions of years old is a theory.  A theory based of ToE or the Theory of Evolution.  ToE needed billions of years for evolution to happen.  That is what I am saying is pseudoscience.  If you want to know why, the answers are here -- The Young Earth .

If you look at the history of what science claimed to be the age of the earth, it was changing every twenty years.  For example, schools were teaching it was around 2 billion years old in 1960s.







So science doesn't know, but won't peer-review what the young earth creation scientists are saying (leaving out the Bible).


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the reason you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, is based on the fact that Sumerians invented writing 6000 years ago.
> 
> But they told of a very different situation than what Christians believe today. They actually wrote a lot of what the OT is based upon, and later got changed by crazy religious people...
> 
> Sumerian texts, 6000 years ago, say that there was life before them and they detail a lot about it...
> 
> Now, if you think some power-driven person is going to change that fact, to suit some money-making machine... have at it!
> 
> I'd love to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated someone else and several others and they got whupped and left.  Give some other believer a chance to rebut the thread.  I'm going to discuss some other thread.
> 
> You already discussed several different topics, except answert my question why do you believe the earth is millions or billions of years old?  Why do you believe the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a ‘belief.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to admit it's a lie, it's fine by me ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s neither a ‘lie’ nor a ‘belief’ – but you’re at liberty to exhibit your willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of an answer, now you claim it's my willful ignorance.  That sure sounds like you are the one who is ignorant or else you would have answered my question.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying when you do not state why you *believe* the earth is billions of years old?   My original question still stands.
> 
> What the earth being billions of years old is a theory.  A theory based of ToE or the Theory of Evolution.  ToE needed billions of years for evolution to happen.  That is what I am saying is pseudoscience.  If you want to know why, the answers are here -- The Young Earth .
> 
> If you look at the history of what science claimed to be the age of the earth, it was changing every twenty years.  For example, schools were teaching it was around 2 billion years old in 1960s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So science doesn't know, but won't peer-review what the young earth creation scientists are saying (leaving out the Bible).
Click to expand...


Because you're theory is a plagiarized one, based on much more ancient texts. That told something totally different. And you're theory is then doubled down by ignorance, pride, greed, and... money.

And that theory has caused countless loss of life.

For no reason. Other than ignorance, pride, greed, and money.

You have to let go of the bs, and understand that spirituality is something that each person needs to learn on their own. It's not something you can drill into someone, or cause them to believe with the punishment of death and eternal damnation if they don't.

Christianity, and all other major religions, are money making machines. They only strive to keep and enforce the faithful to keep their money and power. And get new followers to continue the trend, no matter what the human cost.

They don't give even 1 single poop, about the people. And every government is entrenched with a religion, to give it an army willing to die for the religion. 

So let's understand where your religion came from... So maybe you can start distancing yourself, and start looking at the reality...


----------



## social philosopher

If God doesn't exist nothing. Nothing would change. He doesn't exist. Never has. Never will. So what is occurring will continue to do so until human beings mature enough not to need a big daddy looking in on us.


----------



## social philosopher

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the reason you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, is based on the fact that Sumerians invented writing 6000 years ago.
> 
> But they told of a very different situation than what Christians believe today. They actually wrote a lot of what the OT is based upon, and later got changed by crazy religious people...
> 
> Sumerian texts, 6000 years ago, say that there was life before them and they detail a lot about it...
> 
> Now, if you think some power-driven person is going to change that fact, to suit some money-making machine... have at it!
> 
> I'd love to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated someone else and several others and they got whupped and left.  Give some other believer a chance to rebut the thread.  I'm going to discuss some other thread.
> 
> You already discussed several different topics, except answert my question why do you believe the earth is millions or billions of years old?  Why do you believe the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a ‘belief.’
Click to expand...

RWS: You spoke of the Sumerians. It's amazing that you did so. Have you read their material. I have. Amazing. Do you know of Zecharia Sitchin's work?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated someone else and several others and they got whupped and left.  Give some other believer a chance to rebut the thread.  I'm going to discuss some other thread.
> 
> You already discussed several different topics, except answert my question why do you believe the earth is millions or billions of years old?  Why do you believe the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not a ‘belief.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to admit it's a lie, it's fine by me ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s neither a ‘lie’ nor a ‘belief’ – but you’re at liberty to exhibit your willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of an answer, now you claim it's my willful ignorance.  That sure sounds like you are the one who is ignorant or else you would have answered my question.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying when you do not state why you *believe* the earth is billions of years old?   My original question still stands.
> 
> What the earth being billions of years old is a theory.  A theory based of ToE or the Theory of Evolution.  ToE needed billions of years for evolution to happen.  That is what I am saying is pseudoscience.  If you want to know why, the answers are here -- The Young Earth .
> 
> If you look at the history of what science claimed to be the age of the earth, it was changing every twenty years.  For example, schools were teaching it was around 2 billion years old in 1960s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So science doesn't know, but won't peer-review what the young earth creation scientists are saying (leaving out the Bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're theory is a plagiarized one, based on much more ancient texts. That told something totally different. And you're theory is then doubled down by ignorance, pride, greed, and... money.
> 
> And that theory has caused countless loss of life.
> 
> For no reason. Other than ignorance, pride, greed, and money.
> 
> You have to let go of the bs, and understand that spirituality is something that each person needs to learn on their own. It's not something you can drill into someone, or cause them to believe with the punishment of death and eternal damnation if they don't.
> 
> Christianity, and all other major religions, are money making machines. They only strive to keep and enforce the faithful to keep their money and power. And get new followers to continue the trend, no matter what the human cost.
> 
> They don't give even 1 single poop, about the people. And every government is entrenched with a religion, to give it an army willing to die for the religion.
> 
> So let's understand where your religion came from... So maybe you can start distancing yourself, and start looking at the reality...
Click to expand...


What are you blabbering about ha ha?  We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection.  Because of that we were given salvation.  I think by now everyone is familiar with John 3:16.  God loves us, so He sacrificed His only Son in order to gave us a second eternal life.  Adam and Eve had the first one, but lost it for all until then.  So how does this reality have to do with what you opine about?  Somewhere along in life, you veered off and now have come to this conclusion.  I wish you good luck with that.


----------



## james bond

I agree, the Sumerians were an interesting people.  That said one of the controversies is that they existed long before australopithecus afarensis came along.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not a ‘belief.’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to admit it's a lie, it's fine by me ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s neither a ‘lie’ nor a ‘belief’ – but you’re at liberty to exhibit your willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of an answer, now you claim it's my willful ignorance.  That sure sounds like you are the one who is ignorant or else you would have answered my question.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying when you do not state why you *believe* the earth is billions of years old?   My original question still stands.
> 
> What the earth being billions of years old is a theory.  A theory based of ToE or the Theory of Evolution.  ToE needed billions of years for evolution to happen.  That is what I am saying is pseudoscience.  If you want to know why, the answers are here -- The Young Earth .
> 
> If you look at the history of what science claimed to be the age of the earth, it was changing every twenty years.  For example, schools were teaching it was around 2 billion years old in 1960s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So science doesn't know, but won't peer-review what the young earth creation scientists are saying (leaving out the Bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're theory is a plagiarized one, based on much more ancient texts. That told something totally different. And you're theory is then doubled down by ignorance, pride, greed, and... money.
> 
> And that theory has caused countless loss of life.
> 
> For no reason. Other than ignorance, pride, greed, and money.
> 
> You have to let go of the bs, and understand that spirituality is something that each person needs to learn on their own. It's not something you can drill into someone, or cause them to believe with the punishment of death and eternal damnation if they don't.
> 
> Christianity, and all other major religions, are money making machines. They only strive to keep and enforce the faithful to keep their money and power. And get new followers to continue the trend, no matter what the human cost.
> 
> They don't give even 1 single poop, about the people. And every government is entrenched with a religion, to give it an army willing to die for the religion.
> 
> So let's understand where your religion came from... So maybe you can start distancing yourself, and start looking at the reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you blabbering about ha ha?  We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection.  Because of that we were given salvation.  I think by now everyone is familiar with John 3:16.  God loves us, so He sacrificed His only Son in order to gave us a second eternal life.  Adam and Eve had the first one, but lost it for all until then.  So how does this reality have to do with what you opine about?  Somewhere along in life, you veered off and now have come to this conclusion.  I wish you good luck with that.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection. Because of that we were given salvation.




are you confusing this thread with your Sunday school indoctrination, you must feel a little out of place learning with the toddlers ...


_*
Because of that we were given salvation.
*_
to bad we are all in this together, otherwise good luck with your state of delusion.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to admit it's a lie, it's fine by me ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s neither a ‘lie’ nor a ‘belief’ – but you’re at liberty to exhibit your willful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of an answer, now you claim it's my willful ignorance.  That sure sounds like you are the one who is ignorant or else you would have answered my question.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying when you do not state why you *believe* the earth is billions of years old?   My original question still stands.
> 
> What the earth being billions of years old is a theory.  A theory based of ToE or the Theory of Evolution.  ToE needed billions of years for evolution to happen.  That is what I am saying is pseudoscience.  If you want to know why, the answers are here -- The Young Earth .
> 
> If you look at the history of what science claimed to be the age of the earth, it was changing every twenty years.  For example, schools were teaching it was around 2 billion years old in 1960s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So science doesn't know, but won't peer-review what the young earth creation scientists are saying (leaving out the Bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're theory is a plagiarized one, based on much more ancient texts. That told something totally different. And you're theory is then doubled down by ignorance, pride, greed, and... money.
> 
> And that theory has caused countless loss of life.
> 
> For no reason. Other than ignorance, pride, greed, and money.
> 
> You have to let go of the bs, and understand that spirituality is something that each person needs to learn on their own. It's not something you can drill into someone, or cause them to believe with the punishment of death and eternal damnation if they don't.
> 
> Christianity, and all other major religions, are money making machines. They only strive to keep and enforce the faithful to keep their money and power. And get new followers to continue the trend, no matter what the human cost.
> 
> They don't give even 1 single poop, about the people. And every government is entrenched with a religion, to give it an army willing to die for the religion.
> 
> So let's understand where your religion came from... So maybe you can start distancing yourself, and start looking at the reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you blabbering about ha ha?  We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection.  Because of that we were given salvation.  I think by now everyone is familiar with John 3:16.  God loves us, so He sacrificed His only Son in order to gave us a second eternal life.  Adam and Eve had the first one, but lost it for all until then.  So how does this reality have to do with what you opine about?  Somewhere along in life, you veered off and now have come to this conclusion.  I wish you good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection. Because of that we were given salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you confusing this thread with your Sunday school indoctrination, you must feel a little out of place learning with the toddlers ...
> 
> 
> _*
> Because of that we were given salvation.
> *_
> to bad we are all in this together, otherwise good luck with your state of delusion.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  You're in with the out crowd BW.  John 3:16 has gone beyond Sunday service and into pop culture and tradition.  The John 3:16 sign is held up at every NFL game during field goals.  Then there is God Bless America sung at most all MLB games.  The Star Spangled Banner sung at all sporting events has the line "In God is our trust" in the full lyrics.  When scientists make a breakthrough, they should yell "Praise be to God!"  or "Thank God It's Breakthrough Day!"  Praising God is good for any occasion.

The Resurrection Of John 3:16


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s neither a ‘lie’ nor a ‘belief’ – but you’re at liberty to exhibit your willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of an answer, now you claim it's my willful ignorance.  That sure sounds like you are the one who is ignorant or else you would have answered my question.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying when you do not state why you *believe* the earth is billions of years old?   My original question still stands.
> 
> What the earth being billions of years old is a theory.  A theory based of ToE or the Theory of Evolution.  ToE needed billions of years for evolution to happen.  That is what I am saying is pseudoscience.  If you want to know why, the answers are here -- The Young Earth .
> 
> If you look at the history of what science claimed to be the age of the earth, it was changing every twenty years.  For example, schools were teaching it was around 2 billion years old in 1960s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So science doesn't know, but won't peer-review what the young earth creation scientists are saying (leaving out the Bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're theory is a plagiarized one, based on much more ancient texts. That told something totally different. And you're theory is then doubled down by ignorance, pride, greed, and... money.
> 
> And that theory has caused countless loss of life.
> 
> For no reason. Other than ignorance, pride, greed, and money.
> 
> You have to let go of the bs, and understand that spirituality is something that each person needs to learn on their own. It's not something you can drill into someone, or cause them to believe with the punishment of death and eternal damnation if they don't.
> 
> Christianity, and all other major religions, are money making machines. They only strive to keep and enforce the faithful to keep their money and power. And get new followers to continue the trend, no matter what the human cost.
> 
> They don't give even 1 single poop, about the people. And every government is entrenched with a religion, to give it an army willing to die for the religion.
> 
> So let's understand where your religion came from... So maybe you can start distancing yourself, and start looking at the reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you blabbering about ha ha?  We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection.  Because of that we were given salvation.  I think by now everyone is familiar with John 3:16.  God loves us, so He sacrificed His only Son in order to gave us a second eternal life.  Adam and Eve had the first one, but lost it for all until then.  So how does this reality have to do with what you opine about?  Somewhere along in life, you veered off and now have come to this conclusion.  I wish you good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection. Because of that we were given salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you confusing this thread with your Sunday school indoctrination, you must feel a little out of place learning with the toddlers ...
> 
> 
> _*
> Because of that we were given salvation.
> *_
> to bad we are all in this together, otherwise good luck with your state of delusion.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You're in with the out crowd BW.  John 3:16 has gone beyond Sunday service and into pop culture and tradition.  The John 3:16 sign is held up at every NFL game during field goals.  Then there is God Bless America sung at most all MLB games.  The Star Spangled Banner sung at all sporting events has the line "In God is our trust" in the full lyrics.  When scientists make a breakthrough, they should yell "Praise be to God!"  or "Thank God It's Breakthrough Day!"  Praising God is good for any occasion.
> 
> The Resurrection Of John 3:16
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Praising God is good for any occasion.




there you go again, did you mention the bible in your last post - oh, of course John 3:16 - other than your idolatrous backdrop nothing in your post would be offensive to anyone truly religious.

that's a hint bond you already have been drowned out by the Almighty once the next time it will be permanent.

.


----------



## RWS

social philosopher said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the reason you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, is based on the fact that Sumerians invented writing 6000 years ago.
> 
> But they told of a very different situation than what Christians believe today. They actually wrote a lot of what the OT is based upon, and later got changed by crazy religious people...
> 
> Sumerian texts, 6000 years ago, say that there was life before them and they detail a lot about it...
> 
> Now, if you think some power-driven person is going to change that fact, to suit some money-making machine... have at it!
> 
> I'd love to debate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated someone else and several others and they got whupped and left.  Give some other believer a chance to rebut the thread.  I'm going to discuss some other thread.
> 
> You already discussed several different topics, except answert my question why do you believe the earth is millions or billions of years old?  Why do you believe the earth is billions of years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a ‘belief.’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RWS: You spoke of the Sumerians. It's amazing that you did so. Have you read their material. I have. Amazing. Do you know of Zecharia Sitchin's work?
Click to expand...


Absolutely! 

And I know Sitchin's interpretations very well. And I do argue that in certain circles. But not necessary here...

We can use mainstream interpretations of Sumerian and Babylonian texts, to do away with the thought that the Bible is an original document.


----------



## RWS

As well as science.... jus sayin....


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> I agree, the Sumerians were an interesting people.  That said one of the controversies is that they existed long before australopithecus afarensis came along.



LOL!

You're thinking _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_... jus sayin...


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of an answer, now you claim it's my willful ignorance.  That sure sounds like you are the one who is ignorant or else you would have answered my question.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying when you do not state why you *believe* the earth is billions of years old?   My original question still stands.
> 
> What the earth being billions of years old is a theory.  A theory based of ToE or the Theory of Evolution.  ToE needed billions of years for evolution to happen.  That is what I am saying is pseudoscience.  If you want to know why, the answers are here -- The Young Earth .
> 
> If you look at the history of what science claimed to be the age of the earth, it was changing every twenty years.  For example, schools were teaching it was around 2 billion years old in 1960s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So science doesn't know, but won't peer-review what the young earth creation scientists are saying (leaving out the Bible).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're theory is a plagiarized one, based on much more ancient texts. That told something totally different. And you're theory is then doubled down by ignorance, pride, greed, and... money.
> 
> And that theory has caused countless loss of life.
> 
> For no reason. Other than ignorance, pride, greed, and money.
> 
> You have to let go of the bs, and understand that spirituality is something that each person needs to learn on their own. It's not something you can drill into someone, or cause them to believe with the punishment of death and eternal damnation if they don't.
> 
> Christianity, and all other major religions, are money making machines. They only strive to keep and enforce the faithful to keep their money and power. And get new followers to continue the trend, no matter what the human cost.
> 
> They don't give even 1 single poop, about the people. And every government is entrenched with a religion, to give it an army willing to die for the religion.
> 
> So let's understand where your religion came from... So maybe you can start distancing yourself, and start looking at the reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you blabbering about ha ha?  We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection.  Because of that we were given salvation.  I think by now everyone is familiar with John 3:16.  God loves us, so He sacrificed His only Son in order to gave us a second eternal life.  Adam and Eve had the first one, but lost it for all until then.  So how does this reality have to do with what you opine about?  Somewhere along in life, you veered off and now have come to this conclusion.  I wish you good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection. Because of that we were given salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you confusing this thread with your Sunday school indoctrination, you must feel a little out of place learning with the toddlers ...
> 
> 
> _*
> Because of that we were given salvation.
> *_
> to bad we are all in this together, otherwise good luck with your state of delusion.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You're in with the out crowd BW.  John 3:16 has gone beyond Sunday service and into pop culture and tradition.  The John 3:16 sign is held up at every NFL game during field goals.  Then there is God Bless America sung at most all MLB games.  The Star Spangled Banner sung at all sporting events has the line "In God is our trust" in the full lyrics.  When scientists make a breakthrough, they should yell "Praise be to God!"  or "Thank God It's Breakthrough Day!"  Praising God is good for any occasion.
> 
> The Resurrection Of John 3:16
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Praising God is good for any occasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there you go again, did you mention the bible in your last post - oh, of course John 3:16 - other than your idolatrous backdrop nothing in your post would be offensive to anyone truly religious.
> 
> that's a hint bond you already have been drowned out by the Almighty once the next time it will be permanent.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I worship, thank and pray to (ask for help or wishes) God.  I fear, in a good way, i.e. respect and obey, God.  Not false idols like evolution.  Worship usually means knowing about God and talking about Him.  Unlike most atheists who love science, but do not know it or can explain it.  How sad is such a person who thinks metamorphosis is evolution.  "Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become "fools" so that you may become wise."  1 Corinthians 3:18

Or things I learned from watching Star Wars ha ha:
"Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them."

OBI-WAN KENOBI, _Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope_

Quotes on Deception


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Sumerians were an interesting people.  That said one of the controversies is that they existed long before australopithecus afarensis came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> You're thinking _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_... jus sayin...
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Adam and Eve, Cain, Abel, Abraham, Isaac and people in the OT came before the global flood.  Australopithecus, prehistoric cave people and the rest came after Noah's Flood and the greatest climate change of all time.  It's why we do not live as long and have weaknesses that the ancient peoples did not have. 

Furthermore, humans did not come from fish or evolve from bacteria.  Not only are the transitional fossils missing, I can disprove that anything evolved from bacteria in one experiment*.  One would have to know that oxygen** didn't exist in the primordial soup and spontaneous generation does not happen no matter how much the evos wish it.

* Watch experiment #1

** Recent theories now claim oxygen was present.  Can you or other atheists who worship science explain this?  What is the problem with oxygen and spontaneous generation?


----------



## RWS

Life began without oxygen. They were anaerobic organisms that did not require oxygen. Some still exist today. 

It wasn't until organisms began releasing oxygen as a byproduct through photosynthesis that oxygen began becoming abundant on the earth.

And all that oxygen (even though still very little in terms of the atmosphere) actually killed off almost all life-forms. It created a mass-extinction event over millions of years.

Those that survived were organisms that could deal with the growing levels of oxygen, and thrive. And that led to "life as we know it". 

And that was billions of years before the Earth was created in the 6000-yr Earth theory that fundamentalist Christian religions promote. 

Australopithecus Afarensis appeared between 3-4 million years ago. Neanderthals appeared about 300,000 years ago. And Homo Sapiens soon after. 

The "Great Flood", which may be more than a singular event and could have been a series of events throughout the world, would have occurred when the ice sheets that covered most of the world started melting, about 12,000 years ago. 

Sumerians wrote about their version of the "Great Flood", in which Ziusudra was instructed by Enki to build a vessel in which to survive the upcoming deluge. And bring his family, friends, and livestock with him. And they wrote this 2000 years before the Old Testament. He was also instructed to release birds once things had calmed down, in order to find land.


----------



## RWS

So if you want to believe ancient texts, than you would do well to let go of the Old Testament and their plagiarized stories.

Adam was actually AD.IM (which is plural for "humans"), and they lived in the ED.IN (a city in ancient Mesopotamia). But after similarities like that, the OT took stories into a very different route to promote a monotheistic "God", and led to the false religion you believe today. And remember, almost every devoutly religious person believes what they believe because they born into it, and had no choice in the matter, and didn't seek further enlightenment other than birthright.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're theory is a plagiarized one, based on much more ancient texts. That told something totally different. And you're theory is then doubled down by ignorance, pride, greed, and... money.
> 
> And that theory has caused countless loss of life.
> 
> For no reason. Other than ignorance, pride, greed, and money.
> 
> You have to let go of the bs, and understand that spirituality is something that each person needs to learn on their own. It's not something you can drill into someone, or cause them to believe with the punishment of death and eternal damnation if they don't.
> 
> Christianity, and all other major religions, are money making machines. They only strive to keep and enforce the faithful to keep their money and power. And get new followers to continue the trend, no matter what the human cost.
> 
> They don't give even 1 single poop, about the people. And every government is entrenched with a religion, to give it an army willing to die for the religion.
> 
> So let's understand where your religion came from... So maybe you can start distancing yourself, and start looking at the reality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you blabbering about ha ha?  We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection.  Because of that we were given salvation.  I think by now everyone is familiar with John 3:16.  God loves us, so He sacrificed His only Son in order to gave us a second eternal life.  Adam and Eve had the first one, but lost it for all until then.  So how does this reality have to do with what you opine about?  Somewhere along in life, you veered off and now have come to this conclusion.  I wish you good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already covered the most important part of Christianity which was the Resurrection. Because of that we were given salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you confusing this thread with your Sunday school indoctrination, you must feel a little out of place learning with the toddlers ...
> 
> 
> _*
> Because of that we were given salvation.
> *_
> to bad we are all in this together, otherwise good luck with your state of delusion.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You're in with the out crowd BW.  John 3:16 has gone beyond Sunday service and into pop culture and tradition.  The John 3:16 sign is held up at every NFL game during field goals.  Then there is God Bless America sung at most all MLB games.  The Star Spangled Banner sung at all sporting events has the line "In God is our trust" in the full lyrics.  When scientists make a breakthrough, they should yell "Praise be to God!"  or "Thank God It's Breakthrough Day!"  Praising God is good for any occasion.
> 
> The Resurrection Of John 3:16
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Praising God is good for any occasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there you go again, did you mention the bible in your last post - oh, of course John 3:16 - other than your idolatrous backdrop nothing in your post would be offensive to anyone truly religious.
> 
> that's a hint bond you already have been drowned out by the Almighty once the next time it will be permanent.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I worship, thank and pray to (ask for help or wishes) God.  I fear, in a good way, i.e. respect and obey, God.  Not false idols like evolution.  Worship usually means knowing about God and talking about Him.  Unlike most atheists who love science, but do not know it or can explain it.  How sad is such a person who thinks metamorphosis is evolution.  "Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become "fools" so that you may become wise."  1 Corinthians 3:18
> 
> Or things I learned from watching Star Wars ha ha:
> "Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them."
> 
> OBI-WAN KENOBI, _Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope_
> 
> Quotes on Deception
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> Not false idols like evolution ... How sad is such a person who thinks metamorphosis is evolution.








metamorphosis is real, etched in stone unlike any passage read in your bible. my question you failed to respond to was where does the mechanism (Spirit) for metamorphosis reside while the process is taking place ... evolution points to a Spirit is the point where your book is a dead end.





james bond said:


> Worship usually means knowing about God and talking about Him.



_*Worship usually means knowing about God and talking about (Them).
*_

the Almighty has no regards for worship especially idolatry, The Triumph of Good vs Evil is all that matters, no book required and Jesus as a guide may be useful but other than that it's entirely up to the individual and the collective humanity or the final result will be extinction.

.


----------



## RWS

When religions are shown to defy science, and the earlier texts prove that they're plagiarized, it's just common sense to realize that it's not a good way to go, and to then consider things outside of the box you were born in.

No matter what religion you were born into.

They're all a trap, taking advantage of our need to understand that which we don't understand yet. 

And that's something inherent to human "religion", where rulers seek to create wealth, power and armies from the stupidity and gullibility of other humans who believe them because they don't know any better. And then force that religion to spread through threats of death and damnation...


----------



## RWS

Nowadays, we have science, and recovered history, to take a very enlightened look of the religions that still seek to dominate us today.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Science can be just as much of a trap as religion as the unaware scientific followers pray to their god as they invoke the almighty power of 'scientific consensus'.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## RWS

I agree. Science can be a religion if followed to the point where someone can't accept or explore a possibility that is not accepted by their scientific brethren.

I argue the possibilities of ETUFO's all the time, and I also encounter this wall of denial and ridicule from the heavily scientific types that can't relate to something they can't measure or test. It's very frustrating! 

But there are certainly things out there that challenge our understanding. And exploring those things is very important. So it bugs me when people lock themselves in their box and refuse other possibilities, whether it be because they are part of a religion that can't see outside of their doctrine, or part of the "scientific religion" (let's call them "debunkers") that require measurements and want to put down anything outside of their box.

The important thing is being a good person. And I call that "spirituality". There are many things that we do not understand, and we will continue learning as time goes on. But those that state a finite principle, with no chance of changing or enlightening their minds, are the ones that slow our development as spiritual creatures. And religion is VERY guilty of that. And so is science at times. The difference is that science eventually relents based on overwhelming evidence, while religions continue preaching their mantras regardless. 

I have no problem with faith and beliefs that make you want to better yourself and help others. That's fantastic!

I have problems with ideologies that require you to be in the box, or be shunned/killed. Institutionalized religions fit that bill, and have been the greatest cause of calamity upon the human race outside of bacteria and viruses.

6000-yr Earthers worry me because of their complete denial of anything remotely resembling logic or common sense. It's not a healthy road to follow, is all I'm saying. Open yourselves up to the possibilities, and use your faith in goodness to guide your travels.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Damaged Eagle said:


> Science can be just as much of a trap as religion as the unaware scientific followers pray to their god as they invoke the almighty power of 'scientific consensus'.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****




".... it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
David Berlinski


----------



## esthermoon

Maybe the Universe never started
Maybe it's eternal 
That's what many philosophers and religious men have thought in the last 3000 years
For example Buddha in our lands and Epicurus in the Western world


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Or perhaps we're all a Sim simulation that started when someone we call God turned us on a nanosecond ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## RWS

Very true! Tyson (not the boxer) has talked about that. And it's definitely on the list of possibilities. I don't particularly like that option though, since we can be turned off at any moment, and it is completely out of our control.

What I find funny in that scenario, is that the "God" people worship and governs the on/off switch, can be some malcontent 5-yr-old in the future, that has to go eat dinner...


----------



## Damaged Eagle

RWS said:


> Very true! Tyson (not the boxer) has talked about that. And it's definitely on the list of possibilities. I don't particularly like that option though, since we can be turned off at any moment, and it is completely out of our control.
> 
> What I find funny in that scenario, is that the "God" people worship and governs the on/off switch, can be some malcontent 5-yr-old in the future, that has to go eat dinner...







No sense in worrying about it. It either is or isn't because...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

Sounds really hypocritical.  I'm not the one believing ancient Sumerian mythical texts.  Most were written to promote how great the King was during that time.  And you have your timelines mixed up.  There is no overlap with the millions of years you mention with the first humans Adam and Eve.  Where the evidence first appears is with Cain and Abel.  Sumerian records show the line of Cain and the farming tools which they used for farming.  The Sumerians were the first migrant people and they built a great urban civilization in Sumer along with Egyptians in Egypt.


----------



## james bond

Atheist science is dogma.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


james bond said:


> Atheist science is dogma.






> EarthLink  - Top News
> *
> Galaxy count may now top 2 trillion across universe*
> 
> An astrophysics professor at the University of Nottingham in England led the international team that came up with the mind-boggling estimate of 2 trillion galaxies in the universe. Professor Christopher Conselice said that represents a minimum tenfold increase.





why would it be atheism to believe the universe is older than 6K years and yes that would not be biblical, praise heaven for literacy .... shred the bible to find the truth and the Almighty.

.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PoliticalChic said:


> ".... it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
> David Berlinski








I don't necessarily follow either per se. I believe both science and religion need to have some give. But then my beliefs about about God allows me a wide latitude. Which is probably why this thread is approaching 2000 posts...

*****HAPPY SMILE*****


----------



## PoliticalChic

Damaged Eagle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ".... it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
> David Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily follow either per se. I believe both science and religion need to have some give. But then my beliefs about about God allows me a wide latitude. Which is probably why this thread is approaching 2000 posts...
> 
> *****HAPPY SMILE*****
Click to expand...



"I don't necessarily follow either per se. I believe both science and religion need to have some give."

Can't agree with you here, brother.
But....Gould may:

1. Atheist Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science,  said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria." 
Quite a departure from his Marxist doctrines.


2. You see.....religion doesn't attack science....but scientists...atheists, communists, secularists.....go out of their way...daily....to attack belief.

So....the two are separate and have no need to compete?

3. .... there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.


4.    In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

a.    What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?
Berlinski



What is the insecurity of these 'scientists' that causes them to behave so?


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist science is dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EarthLink  - Top News
> *
> Galaxy count may now top 2 trillion across universe*
> 
> An astrophysics professor at the University of Nottingham in England led the international team that came up with the mind-boggling estimate of 2 trillion galaxies in the universe. Professor Christopher Conselice said that represents a minimum tenfold increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would it be atheism to believe the universe is older than 6K years and yes that would not be biblical, praise heaven for literacy .... shred the bible to find the truth and the Almighty.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


>>why would it be atheism to believe the universe is older than 6K years and yes that would not be biblical, praise heaven for literacy .... shred the bible to find the truth and the Almighty.<<

Gravity.  And I'm using uniformitarianism or what we know today to apply it to the past.  The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly as time goes on.  It means the earth and the moon were closer together in the past.  We can calculate the gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, how fast the moon is spinning away from earth.  The math shows that if the earth is around 6,000 years old, the the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m).  However, most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, an impossibility -- for less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth.  The atheist scientists are wrong again.  When they should have used uniformitarianism, they didn't.  They zigged when they should've zagged.

What this shows is Jesus ♥ the moon.  Instead of Mars, we should be colonizing the moon.  I'd love to see Elon Musk back up bold talk of going to Mars and actually be one first to fly there himself.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

PoliticalChic said:


> What is the insecurity of these 'scientists' that causes them to behave so?








They've lost their way by saying and believing that 'scientific consensus' is science and that those who are uneducated in science should follow them.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## BreezeWood

.


james bond said:


> What this shows is Jesus ♥ the moon.








good luck with that one ...


how do you know the moon is not oscillating, the combined effect of both gravitational fields of moon and Garden earth ... Idolatrist.

.


----------



## The Pipe

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



"If God doesn't exist..."
You have to define God. What are its qualities? You probably, like most everyone else, don't have a clear definition of God. Your definition is probably limited to what some religious book asserts, but it need not be. You have the freedom to define God in any way that suits you. I am not saying there is or isn't a God. I am saying the definition will always be subjective; it will only be meaningful to the eye of the beholder.

There are two worlds: The spiritual and the temporary/mortal. 
The spiritual is eternal. It is composed of perfect eternal conscious energy---in short, perfect spirits---eternal thinking-feeling entities, all perfectly equal to one another. Not one was born or created. They have always existed. They are all omnipotent & omniscient. 
Life is consciousness and it has always been ON.
The spiritual created the temporary/mortal world.
All mortal creatures were created by their spiritual selves.
This particular mortal world is Destined---that is, each creature has already imagined their storyline and are now living it out.
There is nothing better to do with eternal consciousness than create and experience these mortal worlds, these dreamgames.
This particular dreamgame was imagined by all participants and then set into motion via the Big Bang. It is absolutely 100% factual to say that every storyline for every creature is a mixture of ice cream & poop, heaven & hell. 
Death is but waking up from this dreamgame. It is an automatic return to spiritual sanity & sobriety, our Homestate of Awareness.
All deaths are destined. No deaths can be prevented. The only freewill available is our commentary along the Ride. The Ride, like all rides, is not a drive, it is a ride, and all rides are fixed.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

The Pipe said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If God doesn't exist..."
> You have to define God. What are its qualities? You probably, like most everyone else, don't have a clear definition of God. Your definition is probably limited to what some religious book asserts, but it need not be. You have the freedom to define God in any way that suits you. I am not saying there is or isn't a God. I am saying the definition will always be subjective; it will only be meaningful to the eye of the beholder.
> 
> There are two worlds: The spiritual and the temporary/mortal.
> The spiritual is eternal. It is composed of perfect eternal conscious energy---in short, perfect spirits---eternal thinking-feeling entities, all perfectly equal to one another. Not one was born or created. They have always existed. They are all omnipotent & omniscient.
> Life is consciousness and it has always been ON.
> The spiritual created the temporary/mortal world.
> All mortal creatures were created by their spiritual selves.
> This particular mortal world is Destined---that is, each creature has already imagined their storyline and are now living it out.
> There is nothing better to do with eternal consciousness than create and experience these mortal worlds, these dreamgames.
> This particular dreamgame was imagined by all participants and then set into motion via the Big Bang. It is absolutely 100% factual to say that every storyline for every creature is a mixture of ice cream & poop, heaven & hell.
> Death is but waking up from this dreamgame. It is an automatic return to spiritual sanity & sobriety, our Homestate of Awareness.
> All deaths are destined. No deaths can be prevented. The only freewill available is our commentary along the Ride. The Ride, like all rides, is not a drive, it is a ride, and all rides are fixed.
Click to expand...






So instead of asking the most obvious question you decide to define what you think God is for me.

That sounds like a very progressive attitude... Thanks for playing but no thanks.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this shows is Jesus ♥ the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good luck with that one ...
> 
> 
> how do you know the moon is not oscillating, the combined effect of both gravitational fields of moon and Garden earth ... Idolatrist.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why need luck when we have science and mathematics?

The moon has several striking characteristics and these characteristics are "clues" or "hints" left by God for men to discover, i.e. evidence for God  -- Calenders .

Do you have any evidence the moon is oscillating?

Earth's gravity keeps the moon in its orbit.  The moon's gravity causes the movement of the Earth's oceans to form a tidal bulge.  The tidal bulge releases a small amount of energy into the Moon, pushing it into a higher orbit like the faster, outside lanes of a test track.  It feels like that of being on the roundabout in a children's playground.  The faster you rotate, the more force you feel of being slung outward.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
_


The Pipe said:



			You have to define God. What are its qualities?
		
Click to expand...

You have to define God. What are their qualities?
_

_


The Pipe said:



			You have the freedom to define God in any way that suits you. I am not saying there is or isn't a God. I am saying the definition will always be subjective; it will only be meaningful to the eye of the beholder.
		
Click to expand...



*You have the freedom to define God in any way that suits you.*
_
so much for the death of liberation theology ...

_*
 I am saying the definition will always be subjective; it will only be meaningful to the eye of the beholder.*_

obviously you have never stubbed your toe, there is reality whether people believe it or not.
_



The Pipe said:



			The spiritual created the temporary/mortal world.
All mortal creatures were created by their spiritual selves.

Click to expand...

_where has it ever been demonstrated an interchangeability exists for a mortal. what value would it be for the Spiritual.
_

.





_


----------



## RWNJ

Socialist said:


> Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.


And that is exactly why you are going to Hell. Maybe you should start...Giving a f**K, that is.


----------



## The Pipe

BreezeWood said:


> .
> _
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to define God. What are its qualities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to define God. What are their qualities?
> _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to define God in any way that suits you. I am not saying there is or isn't a God. I am saying the definition will always be subjective; it will only be meaningful to the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You have the freedom to define God in any way that suits you.*
> _
> so much for the death of liberation theology ...
> 
> _*
> I am saying the definition will always be subjective; it will only be meaningful to the eye of the beholder.*_
> 
> obviously you have never stubbed your toe, there is reality whether people believe it or not.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> The spiritual created the temporary/mortal world.
> All mortal creatures were created by their spiritual selves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _where has it ever been demonstrated an interchangeability exists for a mortal. what value would it be for the Spiritual.


The spiritual is consciousness---eternal consciousness, more specifically, it is composed of individual thinking-feeling entities, each of whom is perfectly equal to all others. What are these thinkers to think about for eternity? They were never born or created, have always existed, so what are they to think about for eternity? So they use their imaginations and collectively conceive, imagine, design and then manifest temporary worlds with temporary storylines and temporary roleplaying lives. Now, in order for those lives to seem "real", the thinkers have to voluntarily forget the truth of what they are. This amnesia creates the experience of Mystery so that we find ourselves in the authentic experience of wondering how we got here, what's expected of us whilst we are here, and what happens when we die. The value of this experience for the spirit is the escape of the eternal crush of conscious boredom. Without dreamgames like this one we are in at the moment, we would be eternally bored...to distraction.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> Sounds really hypocritical.  I'm not the one believing ancient Sumerian mythical texts.  Most were written to promote how great the King was during that time.  And you have your timelines mixed up.  There is no overlap with the millions of years you mention with the first humans Adam and Eve.  Where the evidence first appears is with Cain and Abel.  Sumerian records show the line of Cain and the farming tools which they used for farming.  The Sumerians were the first migrant people and they built a great urban civilization in Sumer along with Egyptians in Egypt.



You're not the one believing ancient Mesopotamian text timelines, yet you agree?


----------



## RWS

The ice age, and then therefore the subsequent flood the created floods, occurred well before the Sumerian civilization.

And the Sumerian civilization started 6000 years ago.

Your 6000-yr-Earther theory is only based on the fact that recorded history started 6000 years ago, by the Sumerians when they learned how to write and started "civilization" as we know it.

But they wrote about much more ancient times as well. Including the "Great Flood" and "Genesis", thousands of years before them, and described the people just like the OT ended up describing them in 2000 BC (2000 years AFTER the Sumerians). And those original stories go well past the 6000 yr threshold necessary to prove your theory as religious fanaticism.


----------



## RWS

And then... we get to the NT, and Jesus....

I love Jesus! I roll the way that I think he should have rolled...

But the reality is that he probably did not exist. At least not the way we are told....

Jump to 4:30 to save yourself... 

But listen to it afterwards. Closely...


----------



## BreezeWood

The Pipe said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> _
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to define God. What are its qualities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to define God. What are their qualities?
> _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the freedom to define God in any way that suits you. I am not saying there is or isn't a God. I am saying the definition will always be subjective; it will only be meaningful to the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You have the freedom to define God in any way that suits you.*
> _
> so much for the death of liberation theology ...
> 
> _*
> I am saying the definition will always be subjective; it will only be meaningful to the eye of the beholder.*_
> 
> obviously you have never stubbed your toe, there is reality whether people believe it or not.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> The spiritual created the temporary/mortal world.
> All mortal creatures were created by their spiritual selves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _where has it ever been demonstrated an interchangeability exists for a mortal. what value would it be for the Spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> The spiritual is consciousness---eternal consciousness, more specifically, it is composed of individual thinking-feeling entities, each of whom is perfectly equal to all others. What are these thinkers to think about for eternity? They were never born or created, have always existed, so what are they to think about for eternity? So they use their imaginations and collectively conceive, imagine, design and then manifest temporary worlds with temporary storylines and temporary roleplaying lives. Now, in order for those lives to seem "real", the thinkers have to voluntarily forget the truth of what they are. This amnesia creates the experience of Mystery so that we find ourselves in the authentic experience of wondering how we got here, what's expected of us whilst we are here, and what happens when we die. The value of this experience for the spirit is the escape of the eternal crush of conscious boredom. Without dreamgames like this one we are in at the moment, we would be eternally bored...to distraction.
Click to expand...

.


The Pipe said:


> The spiritual is consciousness---eternal consciousness, more specifically, it is composed of individual thinking-feeling entities, each of whom is perfectly equal to all others.




has the Spirit ever stubbed its toe ... is a stone Spiritual. 

what about the cyclone Good vs Evil ....

.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> The ice age, and then therefore the subsequent flood the created floods, occurred well before the Sumerian civilization.
> 
> And the Sumerian civilization started 6000 years ago.
> 
> Your 6000-yr-Earther theory is only based on the fact that recorded history started 6000 years ago, by the Sumerians when they learned how to write and started "civilization" as we know it.
> 
> But they wrote about much more ancient times as well. Including the "Great Flood" and "Genesis", thousands of years before them, and described the people just like the OT ended up describing them in 2000 BC (2000 years AFTER the Sumerians). And those original stories go well past the 6000 yr threshold necessary to prove your theory as religious fanaticism.



Which ice age model are you using?  

Creation scientists have not reached a consensus on one ice age model.  From AIG:  "_Differences between the models have no major bearing on the overall timescale of a straightforward reading of Scriptures, i.e., the Flood of Genesis 6, which occurred roughly 4300 years ago, brought on one major Ice Age that lasted a few hundred years."  _Big Bone Lick is the other ice age model.  The scientists agree that the the plants and animals, such as the woolly mammoth and saber-tooth cat, associated with the layers fit the Pleistocene. I assume you're using this model.  However, they estimate the time to around 2250 BC  or 150 years post flood.  Moreover, AIG states, "According to old-age assumptions about radiometric dating, the deposits were laid between 2.6 million years and 11,700 years ago (9,700 BC). As the term _Ice Age_ is used in science publications, its end does not refer to the melting of the ice sheets, but to the rising world temperatures that started the dramatic and relentless retreat of the ice."


----------



## The Pipe

[/QUOTE]


has the Spirit ever stubbed its toe ... is a stone Spiritual.

what about the cyclone Good vs Evil ....

.[/QUOTE]

What is real cannot be threatened, bullied, harmed or destroyed. The only real thing is perfect eternal conscious energy. Evil is merely an illusion within an illusory world. The spirits in them thar human suits are not harmed by any horrors or pain or deaths they go through. Yes, pain hurts humans. No, pain does not hurt spirits. They are perfect eternal conscious energy. In this particular mortal world, our storylines are dominated by contrasts, polarities, and opposites. All stories contain pain & misfortune---call it Evil if you want to. Evil people, no matter how evil, wake up in their Homestate of Awareness alive & well just like the "good" people. *When the Game is over, both the King and the Pawns go back into the same box.*


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ice age, and then therefore the subsequent flood the created floods, occurred well before the Sumerian civilization.
> 
> And the Sumerian civilization started 6000 years ago.
> 
> Your 6000-yr-Earther theory is only based on the fact that recorded history started 6000 years ago, by the Sumerians when they learned how to write and started "civilization" as we know it.
> 
> But they wrote about much more ancient times as well. Including the "Great Flood" and "Genesis", thousands of years before them, and described the people just like the OT ended up describing them in 2000 BC (2000 years AFTER the Sumerians). And those original stories go well past the 6000 yr threshold necessary to prove your theory as religious fanaticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ice age model are you using?
> 
> Creation scientists have not reached a consensus on one ice age model.  From AIG:  "_Differences between the models have no major bearing on the overall timescale of a straightforward reading of Scriptures, i.e., the Flood of Genesis 6, which occurred roughly 4300 years ago, brought on one major Ice Age that lasted a few hundred years."  _Big Bone Lick is the other ice age model.  The scientists agree that the the plants and animals, such as the woolly mammoth and saber-tooth cat, associated with the layers fit the Pleistocene. I assume you're using this model.  However, they estimate the time to around 2250 BC  or 150 years post flood.  Moreover, AIG states, "According to old-age assumptions about radiometric dating, the deposits were laid between 2.6 million years and 11,700 years ago (9,700 BC). As the term _Ice Age_ is used in science publications, its end does not refer to the melting of the ice sheets, but to the rising world temperatures that started the dramatic and relentless retreat of the ice."
Click to expand...


I'm using the only ice age timeline known to science, which means it ended about 12,000 years ago, like your post says. If fanatics made up their own end-date to suit their plagiarized texts and made-up religions, there's not much I can say about that.... 

Sometimes the quotes you paste actually increase my argument. 

That puts the floods at about 10,000 BC, which is in line with what the Sumerian King timeline shows. And makes the Earth older than 6000 years.


----------



## RWS

Unless the devil created those cuneiform tablets to fool us...


----------



## james bond

I expected as much.  Atheist science as dogma arguments.  One can't exactly argue religion with an atheist.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


The Pipe said:


> Evil is merely an illusion within an illusory world.



matter, a stone transcends both the metaphysical and physical universes and why would illusory not be the same for both as well. that's why there is an Almighty as the existence of evil pervades both and by the present authority is made inert, where it counts. all hail the Almighty ...





The Pipe said:


> Evil people, no matter how evil, wake up in their Homestate of Awareness alive & well just like the "good" people.



not so quick, sporty - your dream may be your last.

.


----------



## The Pipe

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is merely an illusion within an illusory world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> matter, a stone transcends both the metaphysical and physical universes and why would illusory not be the same for both as well. that's why there is an Almighty as the existence of evil pervades both and by the present authority is made inert, where it counts. all hail the Almighty ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil people, no matter how evil, wake up in their Homestate of Awareness alive & well just like the "good" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not so quick, sporty - your dream may be your last.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are incorrect. A stone is an illusory object in an illusory world. It transcends nothing because it is essentially nothing.

There is no Almighty other than your spiritual self.

Evil is an ugly act that you don't like. Evil kills the meat & veggies you eat. Evil is you when you hit or rape your children. Evil is you when you put a rope around a dog's throat and go walkies. Evil is you when you hit an animal with your car and don't stop to help it. But your evil is limited to this illusion. This is the place to be evil. In all of Heaven, you have found the place of Evil---and you are smack in the middle of it. We are brothers of hate & hell. Let's get it on, tiger!


----------



## RWNJ

The Pipe said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is merely an illusion within an illusory world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> matter, a stone transcends both the metaphysical and physical universes and why would illusory not be the same for both as well. that's why there is an Almighty as the existence of evil pervades both and by the present authority is made inert, where it counts. all hail the Almighty ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil people, no matter how evil, wake up in their Homestate of Awareness alive & well just like the "good" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not so quick, sporty - your dream may be your last.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are incorrect. A stone is an illusory object in an illusory world. It transcends nothing because it is essentially nothing.
> 
> There is no Almighty other than your spiritual self.
> 
> Evil is an ugly act that you don't like. Evil kills the meat & veggies you eat. Evil is you when you hit or rape your children. Evil is you when you put a rope around a dog's throat and go walkies. Evil is you when you hit an animal with your car and don't stop to help it. But your evil is limited to this illusion. This is the place to be evil. In all of Heaven, you have found the place of Evil---and you are smack in the middle of it. We are brothers of hate & hell. Let's get it on, tiger!
Click to expand...

Evil is nothing more, or less, than disobedience to God.


----------



## The Pipe

RWNJ said:


> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is merely an illusion within an illusory world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> matter, a stone transcends both the metaphysical and physical universes and why would illusory not be the same for both as well. that's why there is an Almighty as the existence of evil pervades both and by the present authority is made inert, where it counts. all hail the Almighty ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil people, no matter how evil, wake up in their Homestate of Awareness alive & well just like the "good" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not so quick, sporty - your dream may be your last.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are incorrect. A stone is an illusory object in an illusory world. It transcends nothing because it is essentially nothing.
> 
> There is no Almighty other than your spiritual self.
> 
> Evil is an ugly act that you don't like. Evil kills the meat & veggies you eat. Evil is you when you hit or rape your children. Evil is you when you put a rope around a dog's throat and go walkies. Evil is you when you hit an animal with your car and don't stop to help it. But your evil is limited to this illusion. This is the place to be evil. In all of Heaven, you have found the place of Evil---and you are smack in the middle of it. We are brothers of hate & hell. Let's get it on, tiger!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is nothing more, or less, than disobedience to God.
Click to expand...


Define "God".
Seriously.
You pretend to the world that you are a literate person---use words, simple & easy words to define this "God" you speak of.
Oh sure, you think you've had this argument a million times---you have not. You have NEVER properly & adequately defined your "God". 
I seriously doubt you can even describe this God---but that's what you are being challenged to do: Describe & define this "God".
Describe & define & defend.
I reckon you cannot.
Until you can, you are not a true believer. Just a mouthpiece who pretends to have a religious point of view.


----------



## RWNJ

The Pipe said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is merely an illusion within an illusory world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> matter, a stone transcends both the metaphysical and physical universes and why would illusory not be the same for both as well. that's why there is an Almighty as the existence of evil pervades both and by the present authority is made inert, where it counts. all hail the Almighty ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil people, no matter how evil, wake up in their Homestate of Awareness alive & well just like the "good" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not so quick, sporty - your dream may be your last.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are incorrect. A stone is an illusory object in an illusory world. It transcends nothing because it is essentially nothing.
> 
> There is no Almighty other than your spiritual self.
> 
> Evil is an ugly act that you don't like. Evil kills the meat & veggies you eat. Evil is you when you hit or rape your children. Evil is you when you put a rope around a dog's throat and go walkies. Evil is you when you hit an animal with your car and don't stop to help it. But your evil is limited to this illusion. This is the place to be evil. In all of Heaven, you have found the place of Evil---and you are smack in the middle of it. We are brothers of hate & hell. Let's get it on, tiger!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is nothing more, or less, than disobedience to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "God".
> Seriously.
> You pretend to the world that you are a literate person---use words, simple & easy words to define this "God" you speak of.
> Oh sure, you think you've had this argument a million times---you have not. You have NEVER properly & adequately defined your "God".
> I seriously doubt you can even describe this God---but that's what you are being challenged to do: Describe & define this "God".
> Describe & define & defend.
> I reckon you cannot.
> Until you can, you are not a true believer. Just a mouthpiece who pretends to have a religious point of view.
Click to expand...

I don't have to define, or defend, God. He has revealed Himself  to us through Scripture. But since you asked... GOD, the Creator of space and time, sent His only Son to die on the Cross, in order to save me; a sinner. If I was the only person to ever exist, I believe that he would still die for me. He loves me that much. That is MY God. What God do YOU worship?


----------



## The Pipe

RWNJ said:


> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is merely an illusion within an illusory world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> matter, a stone transcends both the metaphysical and physical universes and why would illusory not be the same for both as well. that's why there is an Almighty as the existence of evil pervades both and by the present authority is made inert, where it counts. all hail the Almighty ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil people, no matter how evil, wake up in their Homestate of Awareness alive & well just like the "good" people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not so quick, sporty - your dream may be your last.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are incorrect. A stone is an illusory object in an illusory world. It transcends nothing because it is essentially nothing.
> 
> There is no Almighty other than your spiritual self.
> 
> Evil is an ugly act that you don't like. Evil kills the meat & veggies you eat. Evil is you when you hit or rape your children. Evil is you when you put a rope around a dog's throat and go walkies. Evil is you when you hit an animal with your car and don't stop to help it. But your evil is limited to this illusion. This is the place to be evil. In all of Heaven, you have found the place of Evil---and you are smack in the middle of it. We are brothers of hate & hell. Let's get it on, tiger!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is nothing more, or less, than disobedience to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "God".
> Seriously.
> You pretend to the world that you are a literate person---use words, simple & easy words to define this "God" you speak of.
> Oh sure, you think you've had this argument a million times---you have not. You have NEVER properly & adequately defined your "God".
> I seriously doubt you can even describe this God---but that's what you are being challenged to do: Describe & define this "God".
> Describe & define & defend.
> I reckon you cannot.
> Until you can, you are not a true believer. Just a mouthpiece who pretends to have a religious point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to define, or defend, God. He has revealed Himself  to us through Scripture. But since you asked... GOD, the Creator of space and time, sent His only Son to die on the Cross, in order to save me; a sinner. If I was the only person to ever exist, I believe that he would still die for me. He loves me that much. That is MY God. What God do YOU worship?
Click to expand...


Brother, if you fell down in front of me tonight, I would extend a hand to help you up. If I saw people beating on you, I would phone 911 and rush to your aid yelling & screaming. I am 6' 10", 345 pounds.

I wish I could reach you intellectually. You have not defined God because you have no definition. You don't even seem capable to understand the simple request. I am your child. I have just heard about this thing called death.It is scary. And you mention God, but you don't tell me what this god can do or can't do. I cannot embrace what I cannot picture or understand. Is God like you, daddy? What can God do and what can't he do? Why did he make me? Why did he make me capable of evil? Why would he hold me to the sins of Adam & Eve? Why would he send my brother Jesus to be crucified for my sins? I don't want anyone crucified for my sins. I'd rather burn in Hell than have someone pay for my sins with a gruesome death.

But I have digressed.

Seriously, brother, saying a book defines your God is not good enough. You should at least be able to tell a child what God is, can do, can't do, will do, won't do. You should be able to tell a child why God made you, what God expects from you, and what happens after you die. You should be able to tell a child where God came from and what his good children are going to do with themselves throughout eternity.

Last but not least, if you exercised some true courage and actually scrutinized the Holy Bible, you would admit it is a terrible mess written by people who believed the earth was made for humanity alone, written by people who believed men were more important than women, and money/power/government more important than brotherhood.


----------



## RWNJ

The Pipe said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> matter, a stone transcends both the metaphysical and physical universes and why would illusory not be the same for both as well. that's why there is an Almighty as the existence of evil pervades both and by the present authority is made inert, where it counts. all hail the Almighty ...
> 
> 
> 
> not so quick, sporty - your dream may be your last.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect. A stone is an illusory object in an illusory world. It transcends nothing because it is essentially nothing.
> 
> There is no Almighty other than your spiritual self.
> 
> Evil is an ugly act that you don't like. Evil kills the meat & veggies you eat. Evil is you when you hit or rape your children. Evil is you when you put a rope around a dog's throat and go walkies. Evil is you when you hit an animal with your car and don't stop to help it. But your evil is limited to this illusion. This is the place to be evil. In all of Heaven, you have found the place of Evil---and you are smack in the middle of it. We are brothers of hate & hell. Let's get it on, tiger!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is nothing more, or less, than disobedience to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "God".
> Seriously.
> You pretend to the world that you are a literate person---use words, simple & easy words to define this "God" you speak of.
> Oh sure, you think you've had this argument a million times---you have not. You have NEVER properly & adequately defined your "God".
> I seriously doubt you can even describe this God---but that's what you are being challenged to do: Describe & define this "God".
> Describe & define & defend.
> I reckon you cannot.
> Until you can, you are not a true believer. Just a mouthpiece who pretends to have a religious point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to define, or defend, God. He has revealed Himself  to us through Scripture. But since you asked... GOD, the Creator of space and time, sent His only Son to die on the Cross, in order to save me; a sinner. If I was the only person to ever exist, I believe that he would still die for me. He loves me that much. That is MY God. What God do YOU worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother, if you fell down in front of me tonight, I would extend a hand to help you up. If I saw people beating on you, I would phone 911 and rush to your aid yelling & screaming. I am 6' 10", 345 pounds.
> 
> I wish I could reach you intellectually. You have not defined God because you have no definition. You don't even seem capable to understand the simple request. I am your child. I have just heard about this thing called death.It is scary. And you mention God, but you don't tell me what this god can do or can't do. I cannot embrace what I cannot picture or understand. Is God like you, daddy? What can God do and what can't he do? Why did he make me? Why did he make me capable of evil? Why would he hold me to the sins of Adam & Eve? Why would he send my brother Jesus to be crucified for my sins? I don't want anyone crucified for my sins. I'd rather burn in Hell than have someone pay for my sins with a gruesome death.
> 
> But I have digressed.
> 
> Seriously, brother, saying a book defines your God is not good enough. You should at least be able to tell a child what God is, can do, can't do, will do, won't do. You should be able to tell a child why God made you, what God expects from you, and what happens after you die. You should be able to tell a child where God came from and what his good children are going to do with themselves throughout eternity.
> 
> Last but not least, if you exercised some true courage and actually scrutinized the Holy Bible, you would admit it is a terrible mess written by people who believed the earth was made for humanity alone, written by people who believed men were more important than women, and money/power/government more important than brotherhood.
Click to expand...


I can't help you. If you truly desire to know God, He will reveal Himself to you. But you have to make the effort. Since you haven't found Him, you haven't been looking. You may have heard of someone by the name of Josh McDowell. He was an atheist in college. He used to think Christians were delusional. One day, A Christian asked him to prove that God doesn't exist. Now Josh is a Rhodes Scholar. Do you know what that is? It means he was very educated. He did the research. Not only could he not prove that God doesn't exist, his research convinced him that God was real, and that Jesus was the Son of God, who died and rose again, to save us from death. You can believe what you like, but it will not change the truth, or the consequences for ignoring it. Ball's in your court. What will you do?


----------



## The Pipe

I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe. 

I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.


----------



## RWNJ

The Pipe said:


> I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe.
> 
> I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.



Don't you get it yet? God cannot be defined. He is infinite. He is completely beyond our ability to describe or comprehend. But He has described some of His attributes to us. He is just. He is merciful. He is also vengeful, but it is a just vengeance, and only after those who are worthy of that judgement have completely rejected His gracious gift of salvation. But most of all, God is loving. He loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for the death we deserve, What else do you need to know about Him, other than that? The free gift of salvation is available to everyone. All you need to do is humble yourself before God, and ask Him to forgive you. The only thing stopping you is your pride. Don't you think it's about time to let go of that pride? It WILL be the death of you.


----------



## Campbell

RWNJ said:


> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe.
> 
> I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it yet? God cannot be defined. He is infinite. He is completely beyond our ability to describe or comprehend. But He has described some of His attributes to us. He is just. He is merciful. He is also vengeful, but it is a just vengeance, and only after those who are worthy of that judgement have completely rejected His gracious gift of salvation. But most of all, God is loving. He loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for the death we deserve, What else do you need to know about Him, other than that? The free gift of salvation is available to everyone. All you need to do is humble yourself before God, and ask Him to forgive you. The only thing stopping you is your pride. Don't you think it's about time to let go of that pride? It WILL be the death of you.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you have actually interviewed the guy.

Give us a break!


----------



## The Pipe

RWNJ said:


> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe.
> 
> I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it yet? God cannot be defined. He is infinite. He is completely beyond our ability to describe or comprehend. But He has described some of His attributes to us. He is just. He is merciful. He is also vengeful, but it is a just vengeance, and only after those who are worthy of that judgement have completely rejected His gracious gift of salvation. But most of all, God is loving. He loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for the death we deserve, What else do you need to know about Him, other than that? The free gift of salvation is available to everyone. All you need to do is humble yourself before God, and ask Him to forgive you. The only thing stopping you is your pride. Don't you think it's about time to let go of that pride? It WILL be the death of you.
Click to expand...

 
I've spent enough time with you, pal. You are free to make any commentary you want along the ride. If you speak the truth about your God---and I know 100% you absolutely do not---then I run to that death you speak of with open arms whilst cursing that God with the vilest words imaginable. Your God sounds horrible. I don't want to be one of its creatures. I prefer eternal oblivion or even eternal flames rather than live on my knees for any deity. Period. Your God sucks, pardner. That's why church membership goes down with each passing decade. That's why we will eventually remove In God We Trust from our currency. By the end of this century.


----------



## RWNJ

The Pipe said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe.
> 
> I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it yet? God cannot be defined. He is infinite. He is completely beyond our ability to describe or comprehend. But He has described some of His attributes to us. He is just. He is merciful. He is also vengeful, but it is a just vengeance, and only after those who are worthy of that judgement have completely rejected His gracious gift of salvation. But most of all, God is loving. He loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for the death we deserve, What else do you need to know about Him, other than that? The free gift of salvation is available to everyone. All you need to do is humble yourself before God, and ask Him to forgive you. The only thing stopping you is your pride. Don't you think it's about time to let go of that pride? It WILL be the death of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spent enough time with you, pal. You are free to make any commentary you want along the ride. If you speak the truth about your God---and I know 100% you absolutely do not---then I run to that death you speak of with open arms whilst cursing that God with the vilest words imaginable. Your God sounds horrible. I don't want to be one of its creatures. I prefer eternal oblivion or even eternal flames rather than live on my knees for any deity. Period. Your God sucks, pardner. That's why church membership goes down with each passing decade. That's why we will eventually remove In God We Trust from our currency. By the end of this century.
Click to expand...

Like I said. Pride. It was the Devil's downfall also. I have wasted too much time on you. Time to shake the dust off my feet, as the saying goes. If it is your wish to spend eternity in Hell, I'm sure God will grant you your wish. Just remember. You asked for it. Don't bother replying. I'm adding you to my ignore list.


----------



## Campbell

RWNJ said:


> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe.
> 
> I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it yet? God cannot be defined. He is infinite. He is completely beyond our ability to describe or comprehend. But He has described some of His attributes to us. He is just. He is merciful. He is also vengeful, but it is a just vengeance, and only after those who are worthy of that judgement have completely rejected His gracious gift of salvation. But most of all, God is loving. He loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for the death we deserve, What else do you need to know about Him, other than that? The free gift of salvation is available to everyone. All you need to do is humble yourself before God, and ask Him to forgive you. The only thing stopping you is your pride. Don't you think it's about time to let go of that pride? It WILL be the death of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spent enough time with you, pal. You are free to make any commentary you want along the ride. If you speak the truth about your God---and I know 100% you absolutely do not---then I run to that death you speak of with open arms whilst cursing that God with the vilest words imaginable. Your God sounds horrible. I don't want to be one of its creatures. I prefer eternal oblivion or even eternal flames rather than live on my knees for any deity. Period. Your God sucks, pardner. That's why church membership goes down with each passing decade. That's why we will eventually remove In God We Trust from our currency. By the end of this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said. Pride. It was the Devil's downfall also. I have wasted too much time on you. Time to shake the dust off my feet, as the saying goes. If it is your wish to spend eternity in Hell, I'm sure God will grant you your wish. Just remember. You asked for it. Don't bother replying. I'm adding you to my ignore list.
Click to expand...


I've added Gawd to my ignore list so that makes us even!!


----------



## RWNJ

Campbell said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe.
> 
> I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it yet? God cannot be defined. He is infinite. He is completely beyond our ability to describe or comprehend. But He has described some of His attributes to us. He is just. He is merciful. He is also vengeful, but it is a just vengeance, and only after those who are worthy of that judgement have completely rejected His gracious gift of salvation. But most of all, God is loving. He loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for the death we deserve, What else do you need to know about Him, other than that? The free gift of salvation is available to everyone. All you need to do is humble yourself before God, and ask Him to forgive you. The only thing stopping you is your pride. Don't you think it's about time to let go of that pride? It WILL be the death of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spent enough time with you, pal. You are free to make any commentary you want along the ride. If you speak the truth about your God---and I know 100% you absolutely do not---then I run to that death you speak of with open arms whilst cursing that God with the vilest words imaginable. Your God sounds horrible. I don't want to be one of its creatures. I prefer eternal oblivion or even eternal flames rather than live on my knees for any deity. Period. Your God sucks, pardner. That's why church membership goes down with each passing decade. That's why we will eventually remove In God We Trust from our currency. By the end of this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said. Pride. It was the Devil's downfall also. I have wasted too much time on you. Time to shake the dust off my feet, as the saying goes. If it is your wish to spend eternity in Hell, I'm sure God will grant you your wish. Just remember. You asked for it. Don't bother replying. I'm adding you to my ignore list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've added Gawd to my ignore list so that makes us even!!
Click to expand...

No. That would make you a fool.


----------



## Meriweather

The Pipe said:


> I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe.
> 
> I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.


 
You will "allow"...    Isn't that kind of like allowing people to observe 2+2=4?  

But let's tackle the definition of God.  Traditionally, (and I'm speaking of at least a thousand years), the argument for God--and the definition of God--is the Creator or the Being who put the universe in motion.  The argument for God has ever been based on the scientific premise that an object that is not in motion stays in motion until another force acts upon it.  Who/what was that original force?  Something had to be infinite.  Was it matter that was infinite?  Then how did matter get set into motion?  

Or, is that which was infinite intelligence/spirit?  

The definition of God is that which is infinite; a being who is eternal, with no beginning, no end.  The next question is whether or not it is possible to know, to come into contact with this Being.  Who is He?  What are His attributes?  These are questions theology attempts to address and resolve.


----------



## Meriweather

The Pipe said:


> If you speak the truth about your God---and I know 100% you absolutely do not---then I run to that death you speak of with open arms whilst cursing that God with the vilest words imaginable. Your God sounds horrible. I don't want to be one of its creatures. I prefer eternal oblivion or even eternal flames rather than live on my knees for any deity. Period. Your God sucks, pardner. That's why church membership goes down with each passing decade. That's why we will eventually remove In God We Trust from our currency. By the end of this century.



The question is whether people choose to run from love and goodness because being evil and filled with hate, they cannot exist in love and goodness--anymore than darkness can exist in light.  

Mankind often fails God by failing to tell of a love and goodness so great, so perfect, that evil and hate cannot exist in its presence.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


The Pipe said:


> This is the place to be evil. In all of Heaven, you have found the place of Evil




your scenario was entertaining til the above, was it just a slip or a Freudian one ...

some are able to control evil and live happily till they perish - for those that may join the Everlasting evil must be conquered. The Trumph of Good vs Evil is required by the Almighty as the price for admission.

.


----------



## RWNJ

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the place to be evil. In all of Heaven, you have found the place of Evil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your scenario was entertaining til the above, was it just a slip or a Freudian one ...
> 
> some are able to control evil and live happily till they perish - for those that may join the Everlasting evil must be conquered. The Trumph of Good vs Evil is required by the Almighty as the price for admission.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. There is no price for admission. Salvation is a free gift. All you have to do is accept it. Also, there is no happiness apart from God. What some consider happiness is material wealth. Let's be honest. There are millions of wealthy people who are miserable. Their lives are empty without God.


----------



## james bond

The Pipe said:


> I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe.
> 
> I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.



I can give you a definition, but the description may be difficult to comprehend.  God is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent and omniscient being.  He created the universe and everything within.  He thinks like us and has feelings like us and His words, deeds and existence are described in the Bible.  There's a five minute youtube to explain.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> I expected as much.  Atheist science as dogma arguments.  One can't exactly argue religion with an atheist.



Exactly. But I don't argue religion in itself. I am a man of faith and virtues. So I argue fanatical religions, that completely dismiss any other reality. That includes your 6000-yr-earther religion.

What you promote is pure belief in something that somebody made up, no matter what the consequences, and no matter what the evidence. 

It is a very dangerous road to follow.


----------



## RWS

Your arguments are tantamount to the arguments that Santa Claus exists.

No matter what evidence presented, you will deny it and claim the evidence as lies. Just like a kid finally learning about Santa.

There's a much more real world out there, that needs our help. Instead of people wasting their time on Santa Claus religions. If we all focus our efforts into what is good for humanity, we could eventually all be in a much better place. But we have to let go of the fantasies...


----------



## Mudda

james bond said:


> I can give you a definition, but the description may be difficult to comprehend.  God is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent and omniscient being.  He created the universe and everything within.  He thinks like us and has feelings like us and His words, deeds and existence are described in the Bible.  There's a five minute youtube to explain.


First of all, you have no proof that your god is "a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent and omniscient being.  He created the universe and everything within.  He thinks like us and has feelings like us and His words, deeds and existence are described in the Bible."
Secondly, your video's conclusion are nonsense, and don't even say that god is any of what you say it is.
Which makes you pretty messed up.


----------



## Meriweather

Mudda said:


> First of all, you have no proof that your god is "a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent and omniscient being.  He created the universe and everything within.  He thinks like us and has feelings like us and His words, deeds and existence are described in the Bible." Secondly, your video's conclusion are nonsense, and don't even say that god is any of what you say it is.Which makes you pretty messed up.



The first thing anyone has to consider is what was always in existence.  If it was matter, how did matter come to reproduce itself, how did it begin to move?  From what we know today of physics, in order for an inanimate object to move, something has to cause it to move?  What is infinite...what was always present?  Because we come to a dead end with matter, reason shifts us to an intelligent, spiritual being--a being with no matter Himself, but one with the intelligence to create matter without matter already being present.  Or, if both spirit/intelligence and matter were always present, with the ability to move matter.  The first question to be answered is, Did intelligence come from matter...or, did matter come from intelligence?


----------



## OZman

Meriweather said:


> The first thing anyone has to consider is what was always in existence. If it was matter, how did matter come to reproduce itself, how did it begin to move? From what we know today of physics, in order for an inanimate object to move, something has to cause it to move?



This might help to come to a clearer understanding.


----------



## Meriweather

OZman said:


> This might help to come to a clearer understanding.



Yes, that' is an interesting video.  But...a clearer understanding of what, exactly?


----------



## mamooth

RWNJ said:


> He loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for the death we deserve,



You've clearly got a major self-esteem problem. I certainly don't deserve death merely for existing. Any organism with a spine would say the same thing.

So, other than telling everyone how they're worthless pathetic scum like yourself, what else do you have?


----------



## Mudda

Meriweather said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no proof that your god is "a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent and omniscient being.  He created the universe and everything within.  He thinks like us and has feelings like us and His words, deeds and existence are described in the Bible." Secondly, your video's conclusion are nonsense, and don't even say that god is any of what you say it is.Which makes you pretty messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing anyone has to consider is what was always in existence.  If it was matter, how did matter come to reproduce itself, how did it begin to move?  From what we know today of physics, in order for an inanimate object to move, something has to cause it to move?  What is infinite...what was always present?  Because we come to a dead end with matter, reason shifts us to an intelligent, spiritual being--a being with no matter Himself, but one with the intelligence to create matter without matter already being present.  Or, if both spirit/intelligence and matter were always present, with the ability to move matter.  The first question to be answered is, Did intelligence come from matter...or, did matter come from intelligence?
Click to expand...

So you're pretty messed up as well.
Everything came from the Big Bang... until further notice.


----------



## BreezeWood

RWNJ said:


> Don't be silly. There is no price for admission. Salvation is a free gift. All you have to do is accept it.



you have added a price when you first said there wasn't one ... giving away your Spirit, to bad for you.





RWNJ said:


> Their lives are empty without God.



that's why evil must be conquered, purity comes at an apex of energy and knowledge if not a price then the attainable goal required for admission - the religion from that book, Noah. 

Jesus was forsaken.

.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I expected as much.  Atheist science as dogma arguments.  One can't exactly argue religion with an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. But I don't argue religion in itself. I am a man of faith and virtues. So I argue fanatical religions, that completely dismiss any other reality. That includes your 6000-yr-earther religion.
> 
> What you promote is pure belief in something that somebody made up, no matter what the consequences, and no matter what the evidence.
> 
> It is a very dangerous road to follow.
Click to expand...


If the road or evolution vs creation is dangerous, then it is dangerous for all.  

All I can reply to your opinions is truth is stranger than fiction.  I compared evolution and evolutionary thinking -- Welcome to Evolution 101! -- to creation science and the Bible (started in 2000, but really got into it since 2012) and chose creation science as being more sound and accurate.  It wasn't based on religious reasons.  That said, I've found the Bible is the foundation of creation science so it cannot be left out.  They should not use God in their arguments when it isn't a science matter.  Creation science can be taught in public schools without the religion.  They should not use God of the Gaps which is what Christians warned Christian scientists about, i.e. use God when science cannot explain something or when one is stuck and cannot find the answer.


----------



## Campbell

RWNJ said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you to have your faith & belief. I will not imprison you for them. I will not harm you. I will not deny your right to express them. But you have no definition for your God. You can't even use the language of a 2nd grader to describe & define the God you say you believe in. Look up the word belief. It means to hold onto. But if you have no definition for God, you have nothing to hold onto. What you are holding onto is some sort of murky vague feeling of hope and desire for mercy. You are hoping death is not the end of thinking & feeling and you are hoping something invisible will save you from oblivion. And that's okay. We all die horrible deaths no matter what we believe.
> 
> I don't like the fact that you are unable to define God. Something you look up to but can't describe...can't define...ain't worth looking up to. We live in Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it yet? God cannot be defined. He is infinite. He is completely beyond our ability to describe or comprehend. But He has described some of His attributes to us. He is just. He is merciful. He is also vengeful, but it is a just vengeance, and only after those who are worthy of that judgement have completely rejected His gracious gift of salvation. But most of all, God is loving. He loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for the death we deserve, What else do you need to know about Him, other than that? The free gift of salvation is available to everyone. All you need to do is humble yourself before God, and ask Him to forgive you. The only thing stopping you is your pride. Don't you think it's about time to let go of that pride? It WILL be the death of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spent enough time with you, pal. You are free to make any commentary you want along the ride. If you speak the truth about your God---and I know 100% you absolutely do not---then I run to that death you speak of with open arms whilst cursing that God with the vilest words imaginable. Your God sounds horrible. I don't want to be one of its creatures. I prefer eternal oblivion or even eternal flames rather than live on my knees for any deity. Period. Your God sucks, pardner. That's why church membership goes down with each passing decade. That's why we will eventually remove In God We Trust from our currency. By the end of this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said. Pride. It was the Devil's downfall also. I have wasted too much time on you. Time to shake the dust off my feet, as the saying goes. If it is your wish to spend eternity in Hell, I'm sure God will grant you your wish. Just remember. You asked for it. Don't bother replying. I'm adding you to my ignore list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've added Gawd to my ignore list so that makes us even*!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. *That would make you a fool.*
Click to expand...



Careful there pancho!

*Matthew 5:22*

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but *whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”*


----------



## RWNJ

Campbell said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get it yet? God cannot be defined. He is infinite. He is completely beyond our ability to describe or comprehend. But He has described some of His attributes to us. He is just. He is merciful. He is also vengeful, but it is a just vengeance, and only after those who are worthy of that judgement have completely rejected His gracious gift of salvation. But most of all, God is loving. He loved us enough to send His Son to be a substitute for the death we deserve, What else do you need to know about Him, other than that? The free gift of salvation is available to everyone. All you need to do is humble yourself before God, and ask Him to forgive you. The only thing stopping you is your pride. Don't you think it's about time to let go of that pride? It WILL be the death of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've spent enough time with you, pal. You are free to make any commentary you want along the ride. If you speak the truth about your God---and I know 100% you absolutely do not---then I run to that death you speak of with open arms whilst cursing that God with the vilest words imaginable. Your God sounds horrible. I don't want to be one of its creatures. I prefer eternal oblivion or even eternal flames rather than live on my knees for any deity. Period. Your God sucks, pardner. That's why church membership goes down with each passing decade. That's why we will eventually remove In God We Trust from our currency. By the end of this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said. Pride. It was the Devil's downfall also. I have wasted too much time on you. Time to shake the dust off my feet, as the saying goes. If it is your wish to spend eternity in Hell, I'm sure God will grant you your wish. Just remember. You asked for it. Don't bother replying. I'm adding you to my ignore list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've added Gawd to my ignore list so that makes us even*!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. *That would make you a fool.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful there pancho!
> 
> *Matthew 5:22*
> 
> “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but *whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”*
Click to expand...

Taken out of context. It does not apply in this case. After all, I'm simply repeating what Scripture tells us. "The fool says there is no God" Besides, the modern usage of the word 'fool' is not the same as it was 2000 years ago.


----------



## Campbell

RWNJ said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've spent enough time with you, pal. You are free to make any commentary you want along the ride. If you speak the truth about your God---and I know 100% you absolutely do not---then I run to that death you speak of with open arms whilst cursing that God with the vilest words imaginable. Your God sounds horrible. I don't want to be one of its creatures. I prefer eternal oblivion or even eternal flames rather than live on my knees for any deity. Period. Your God sucks, pardner. That's why church membership goes down with each passing decade. That's why we will eventually remove In God We Trust from our currency. By the end of this century.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said. Pride. It was the Devil's downfall also. I have wasted too much time on you. Time to shake the dust off my feet, as the saying goes. If it is your wish to spend eternity in Hell, I'm sure God will grant you your wish. Just remember. You asked for it. Don't bother replying. I'm adding you to my ignore list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've added Gawd to my ignore list so that makes us even*!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. *That would make you a fool.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful there pancho!
> 
> *Matthew 5:22*
> 
> “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but *whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taken out of context. It does not apply in this case. After all, I'm simply repeating what Scripture tells us. "The fool says there is no God" Besides, the modern usage of the word 'fool' is not the same as it was 2000 years ago.
Click to expand...


What are you....one of the authors of the bible?

Matthew 7:

15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.


----------



## RWNJ

Campbell said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said. Pride. It was the Devil's downfall also. I have wasted too much time on you. Time to shake the dust off my feet, as the saying goes. If it is your wish to spend eternity in Hell, I'm sure God will grant you your wish. Just remember. You asked for it. Don't bother replying. I'm adding you to my ignore list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've added Gawd to my ignore list so that makes us even*!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. *That would make you a fool.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful there pancho!
> 
> *Matthew 5:22*
> 
> “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but *whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taken out of context. It does not apply in this case. After all, I'm simply repeating what Scripture tells us. "The fool says there is no God" Besides, the modern usage of the word 'fool' is not the same as it was 2000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you....one of the authors of the bible   .....   LMAO!!!!
Click to expand...

No. But at least I understand what it says. That verse in Matthew is referring to speaking in anger. I was simply describing you spiritual state.


----------



## OZman

Meriweather said:


> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might help to come to a clearer understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that' is an interesting video.  But...a clearer understanding of what, exactly?
Click to expand...


A clearer understanding of the "quantum world" that science is researching, to formulate an answer to the question that you posed.


----------



## RWNJ

OZman said:


> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might help to come to a clearer understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that' is an interesting video.  But...a clearer understanding of what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A clearer understanding of the "quantum world" that science is researching, to formulate an answer to the question that you posed.
Click to expand...

It answers nothing. Where did the quantum foam come from? How about the universal constants that determine how it behaves?


----------



## OZman

RWNJ said:


> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might help to come to a clearer understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that' is an interesting video.  But...a clearer understanding of what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A clearer understanding of the "quantum world" that science is researching, to formulate an answer to the question that you posed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It answers nothing. Where did the quantum foam come from? How about the universal constants that determine how it behaves?
Click to expand...


Nobody said it was a definitive answer. Science is doing the best it can to research the origin of the universe.


----------



## RWNJ

OZman said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might help to come to a clearer understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that' is an interesting video.  But...a clearer understanding of what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A clearer understanding of the "quantum world" that science is researching, to formulate an answer to the question that you posed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It answers nothing. Where did the quantum foam come from? How about the universal constants that determine how it behaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it was a definitive answer. Science is doing the best it can to research the origin of the universe.
Click to expand...

As stated earlier, they will never be able to do that. All they can do is guess. They cannot perform experiments on something that happened in the past. And experimentation is the heart and soul of science.


----------



## Meriweather

OZman said:


> A clearer understanding of the "quantum world" that science is researching, to formulate an answer to the question that you posed.



All it is saying is that matter may be smaller than once imagined.  It's still matter, is it not?


----------



## OZman

Meriweather said:


> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A clearer understanding of the "quantum world" that science is researching, to formulate an answer to the question that you posed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All it is saying is that matter may be smaller than once imagined.  It's still matter, is it not?
Click to expand...


I have no opinion on this Meriweather, I was only pointing to the fact that science is trying it's best to answer this question.

Whatever anyone's beliefs, it is apparent there is more to this universe than anyone imagined. I do not discount the spiritual aspect of consciousness, nor do I dismiss the advance of science.


----------



## Campbell

RWNJ said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've added Gawd to my ignore list so that makes us even*!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. *That would make you a fool.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful there pancho!
> 
> *Matthew 5:22*
> 
> “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but *whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taken out of context. It does not apply in this case. After all, I'm simply repeating what Scripture tells us. "The fool says there is no God" Besides, the modern usage of the word 'fool' is not the same as it was 2000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you....one of the authors of the bible   .....   LMAO!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. But at least I understand what it says. That verse in Matthew is referring to speaking in anger. I was simply describing you spiritual state.
Click to expand...


I'm LMAO at the idea of you describing my spiritual state. Just who the phuck do you think you are?


----------



## RWS

OK... let's put it this way...

Does everyone agree that the world would be a better place today, if there was ever only one religion on the planet?


----------



## RWS

Or not?


----------



## james bond

OZman said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might help to come to a clearer understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that' is an interesting video.  But...a clearer understanding of what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A clearer understanding of the "quantum world" that science is researching, to formulate an answer to the question that you posed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It answers nothing. Where did the quantum foam come from? How about the universal constants that determine how it behaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it was a definitive answer. Science is doing the best it can to research the origin of the universe.
Click to expand...


I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.  You believe in quantum mechanics, so you should be able to explain what you mean by quantum foam.  I read about quantum mechanics and agree with many of the findings.  However, some of it gets into cosmology or philosophy.  Then it might as well be atheist religion.  That's the unfair part.  God as the creator cannot be taught as science as it is philosophy.  Yet, singularity and dark energy and matter are the same thing.  It is philosophy.

As an advocate of creation science, we find that the universe is bounded and thus would have a center.  That it consists of a lot of plasma.  It is a whole cosmic system that is matter and energy.  If one believes in the Bible and God, then God created the universe in order to 1) tell time, 2) provide light, 3) glorify God (your incredulity of the universe is evidence of God) and 4) to precede the second coming of Jesus Christ.  We can't teach the last two points, but certainly can teach the first two.  We understand the bounded universe would be controversial since BBT teaches that it is expanding and has no bounds.  Yet, there are academic papers stating the universe is bounded..


----------



## RWNJ

james bond said:


> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might help to come to a clearer understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that' is an interesting video.  But...a clearer understanding of what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A clearer understanding of the "quantum world" that science is researching, to formulate an answer to the question that you posed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It answers nothing. Where did the quantum foam come from? How about the universal constants that determine how it behaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it was a definitive answer. Science is doing the best it can to research the origin of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.  And you believe in quantum mechanics, so you should be able to explain what you mean by quantum foam.  I read about quantum mechanics and agree with some of the findings.  However, some of it is cosmology or philosophy.  Then it might as well be atheist religion.
Click to expand...

There is also the simple fact that no one really understands quantum mechanics.


----------



## RWNJ

RWS said:


> OK... let's put it this way...
> 
> Does everyone agree that the world would be a better place today, if there was ever only one religion on the planet?


Depends on which religion it was.


----------



## james bond

RWNJ said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OZman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that' is an interesting video.  But...a clearer understanding of what, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A clearer understanding of the "quantum world" that science is researching, to formulate an answer to the question that you posed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It answers nothing. Where did the quantum foam come from? How about the universal constants that determine how it behaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said it was a definitive answer. Science is doing the best it can to research the origin of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.  And you believe in quantum mechanics, so you should be able to explain what you mean by quantum foam.  I read about quantum mechanics and agree with some of the findings.  However, some of it is cosmology or philosophy.  Then it might as well be atheist religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is also the simple fact that no one really understands quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...


Ha ha.  I definitely agree with you.  I spoke with a quantum scientist once and he gave me papers to look over.  I could understand the papers to some extent, but I still could not understand what he meant.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> OK... let's put it this way...
> 
> Does everyone agree that the world would be a better place today, if there was ever only one religion on the planet?



No, because God gave us free will.  

EDIT:  I think many want world peace, but for some reason we cannot accept our differences and be able to respect and help each other out.


----------



## RWNJ

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK... let's put it this way...
> 
> Does everyone agree that the world would be a better place today, if there was ever only one religion on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because God gave us free will.
> 
> EDIT:  I think many want world peace, but for some reason we cannot accept our differences and be able to respect and help each other out.
Click to expand...

The world would be a better place if everyone followed one simple rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. All human caused strife and suffering is a direct result of disobeying Gods word.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


james bond said:


> I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.




at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study. 

simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
.
.


----------



## RWNJ

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.
> 
> simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
> .
> .
Click to expand...

There are scientific facts for the origin of life, or how and why the universe even exists. Science has no answers. All they can do is speculate. But, mostly, they just make things up. I respect real science, done in the lab. But the theory of origins is not real science. So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.
> 
> simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
> .
> .
Click to expand...


First, you're wrong as usual because there is no proof in science, BreezeWood.  You're confused with mathematics.  Second, there is no valid evidence of evolution and people are rejecting it.  Is it any wonder the MSM tries to promote evolution when it can and all the BS liberal talking points?  Wikileaks has exposed the liberal media.  Creation science has exposed evolution and provided the evidence on many things and will be right some more.

Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.
There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are *overwhelmingly *degenerative and *none* are “uphill” (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.
Geologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.
Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—_not slow and gradual processes over billions of years_. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.
A worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8 is within the boundaries of known geophysics—see phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.
There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly _fictitiou_s and _misleading, _and does not represent the real world_. _In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.
There are *no* transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for “the” missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are *none*. The bottom line, evolution has *never been observed* within fossils or living populations.
Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.
Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)
Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)
Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is “fatally flawed”—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.
Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth’s lithosphere, _not slow and gradual processes over billions of years_.
Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.
Source:  evolution:  The Greatest Deception in Modern History by Roger G. Gallup
https://www.amazon.com/evolution-Greatest-Deception-Scientific-Evolution/dp/0982997574&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## BreezeWood

RWNJ said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.
> 
> simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are scientific facts for the origin of life, or how and why the universe even exists. Science has no answers. All they can do is speculate. But, mostly, they just make things up. I respect real science, done in the lab. But the theory of origins is not real science. So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.
Click to expand...

.


RWNJ said:


> So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.




All hail the Almighty ...


what is being discussed is rewriting the bible as you would have scientist rewrite theirs when proven wrong, something biblicist desperately refuse as an option - ergo, why they need not to be taken seriously.

the validation of the bible.

.


----------



## james bond

BreezeWood said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.
> 
> simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are scientific facts for the origin of life, or how and why the universe even exists. Science has no answers. All they can do is speculate. But, mostly, they just make things up. I respect real science, done in the lab. But the theory of origins is not real science. So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a belief in the Creator is just as valid as any scientific 'theory'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All hail the Almighty ...
> 
> 
> what is being discussed is rewriting the bible as you would have scientist rewrite theirs when proven wrong, something biblicist desperately refuse as an option - ergo, why they need not to be taken seriously.
> 
> the validation of the bible.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Jesus is Lord.  We won't rewrite the Bible because it's not wrong like your evo science.  Gotcha.  Ha ha.  Ta ta.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that science is doing the best it can when it leaves out creation science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at the very least, creationist have not provided verifiable proof for consideration contradicting any of the present known scientific facts, for any field of study.
> 
> simply there is no scientific reason for their participation without verifiable facts to prove their position.
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you're wrong as usual because there is no proof in science, BreezeWood.  You're confused with mathematics.  Second, there is no valid evidence of evolution and people are rejecting it.  Is it any wonder the MSM tries to promote evolution when it can and all the BS liberal talking points?  Wikileaks has exposed the liberal media.  Creation science has exposed evolution and provided the evidence on many things and will be right some more.
> 
> Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.
> There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are *overwhelmingly *degenerative and *none* are “uphill” (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.
> Geologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.
> Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—_not slow and gradual processes over billions of years_. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.
> A worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8 is within the boundaries of known geophysics—see phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.
> There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
> The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly _fictitiou_s and _misleading, _and does not represent the real world_. _In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.
> There are *no* transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for “the” missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are *none*. The bottom line, evolution has *never been observed* within fossils or living populations.
> Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.
> Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)
> Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)
> Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is “fatally flawed”—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.
> Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth’s lithosphere, _not slow and gradual processes over billions of years_.
> Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
> Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.
> Source:  evolution:  The Greatest Deception in Modern History by Roger G. Gallup
> https://www.amazon.com/evolution-Greatest-Deception-Scientific-Evolution/dp/0982997574&tag=ff0d01-20
Click to expand...


As Trump would say... that's all wrong!

But in this instance of Trumpism, it's true!

Seriously, though, back to my question... Have only got one answer so far...


Would the world be a better place if there was only one religion, ever?

I have a point somewhere there that I'm trying to get to...


----------



## RWS

Let's imagine it's your religion...

Would the world rock if everyone just believed in your religion?


----------



## RWS

Let's start with the Golden Rule, is it plagerized? 

Versions of the Golden Rule in dozens of religions and other sources


----------



## RWS

And Bond, just because you find a quote to copy/paste on the internet of God, does not make it true.

I am not going to spend time responding to each line item. Because that's probably what you want me to do, and it's ridiculous. 

I need original stuff, otherwise I can copy/paste way more than you can and at a faster rate...

I don't give a flying freak what your quotes say. I want to hear what you say...


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—











you are really dense bond - I'll ask again, where does the mechanism reside that is responsible for metamorphosis while the transition is taking place from legs to wings ?



_*There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels ...*_



that's because it is not biological - home boy ... .




.


----------



## james bond

My last post #2023 seems to have sealed the deal for creation science.  This thread should be titled "If Evolution doesn't exist."

*If evolution doesn't exist, then we would not be so misinformed.  The dumbing down of America must be for political reasons.*

*How else would an intelligent person explain Hillary Clinton?  We would not be voting for a criminal who should be in prison.*


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> And Bond, just because you find a quote to copy/paste on the internet of God, does not make it true.
> 
> I am not going to spend time responding to each line item. Because that's probably what you want me to do, and it's ridiculous.
> 
> I need original stuff, otherwise I can copy/paste way more than you can and at a faster rate...
> 
> I don't give a flying freak what your quotes say. I want to hear what you say...



I said you're wrong.  Much of evolution is wrong.  Except for natural selection which is part of creation science without the species changing into a new species.  We have BreezeWood who thinks metamorphosis is evidence ha ha.  This is the type of people that Darwinism and evolution has changed.  I can rebut point-by-point stupid atheist science arguments, but you cannot rebut intelligent creation science ones.  Evolution has made people dumber.  It's the dumbing down of America.  We already knew that the mainstream media was prejudiced, biased and liberal and the wikileaks just shows how deep this goes.  Nobody cares about your australopithecus afarensis or Lucy to visit the museum when it came to the USA.  It's buried for good in Ethiopia now.  Keep that feces of a fossil over there.  OTOH, the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter in Kentucy thrives.  Most of this has been covered so I let other creation scientists have their turn.

* *


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> How else would an intelligent person explain Hillary Clinton? We would not be voting for a criminal who should be in prison.




_*Trump vows to sue all female accusers ...*_




> EarthLink  - Top News
> 
> Throwing his campaign off-kilter once again, Donald Trump vowed Saturday to sue every woman who has accused him of sexual assault or other inappropriate behavior. He called them "liars" whose allegations he blamed Democrats for orchestrating.




_*"Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign," he said. Without offering evidence ...*_


to bad for you bond, Hillary is the one person that can beat Trump otherwise the true criminal that will end up in jail after the elction would be President voted in by republicans ...

ha ha and it was your turn to win.

.


----------



## RWS

Please, no politics necessary here. 

So you're saying that species can't cross over to a new species, and not be mates, but you're ok with natural selection? 

Have i got that right? 

I'll be honest, that always made me wonder, how a species can cross over, without getting killed before it can reproduce more of its kind. It has to happen in waves of genetic mutations. It's not just one animal that suddenly evolved and created a new species... It's a combination of natural selections, and given more time than 6000 years... yes, it's gonna happen... 

You're just limiting yourself to 6000 years. The universe is a very complex thing. Limiting yourself to 6000 years of knowledge, makes you post things like that.


----------



## RWS

In 6000 years, we can only witness natural selection. 

We cannot see evolution in such a short span of time. That takes millions of years of natural selection to separate a species. 

Yet we have dogs, cats, wolves, lions, bears, meerkats, fish, bacteria, and apple trees. That took a very loooong time. Definitely not 6000 years. 

Unless Santa the Creator can poof things into existence exactly as they were 6000 years ago, and bury fossils for fun and giggles, and completely make astronomy and physics be an illusion.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Please, no politics necessary here.
> 
> So you're saying that species can't cross over to a new species, and not be mates, but you're ok with natural selection?
> 
> Have i got that right?
> 
> I'll be honest, that always made me wonder, how a species can cross over, without getting killed before it can reproduce more of its kind. It has to happen in waves of genetic mutations. It's not just one animal that suddenly evolved and created a new species... It's a combination of natural selections, and given more time than 6000 years... yes, it's gonna happen...
> 
> You're just limiting yourself to 6000 years. The universe is a very complex thing. Limiting yourself to 6000 years of knowledge, makes you post things like that.



I'm not just saying it, but so are millions of educated people in the world.  Why do you think BreezeWood posted his metamorphosis example






 ?

Ha ha. 

So the best you can do is is "You're just limiting yourself to 6000 years.  The universe is a very complex thing."  

Ho hum.  I may as well go talk politics.  You haven't answered any of my questions, replied to anything using evolution nor got anything right.  Just shooting off your pie hole.

Here's something to think about and explode your un-evolved brain.  Why did chimpanzee-like apes start walking upright?  They already had better locomotion already.

Anyway, I'm off to talk politics.  You and BreezeWood can get a room and discuss how metamorphosis is evidence of evolution.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> In 6000 years, we can only witness natural selection.
> 
> We cannot see evolution in such a short span of time. That takes millions of years of natural selection to separate a species.
> 
> Yet we have dogs, cats, wolves, lions, bears, meerkats, fish, bacteria, and apple trees. That took a very loooong time. Definitely not 6000 years.
> 
> Unless Santa the Creator can poof things into existence exactly as they were 6000 years ago, and bury fossils for fun and giggles, and completely make astronomy and physics be an illusion.



Ha ha.  You can't even get evolution right in your first example.  They have not been able to explain the dog.

"The origin of man's best friend has been a source of wonder and heated debate for centuries.

Even Charles Darwin was unsure whether the dog's true ancestry could be determined, because dog breeds vary so greatly. In fact, the domestic dog is far more variable in size, shape and behavior than any other living mammal, according to James Serpell, professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine and editor of "The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions With People" (Cambridge University Press, 1995)."

How Did Dogs Get to Be Dogs?

Here's the website that I used to learn about evolution.  Why don't you read up on it first before shooting off your piehole ha ha?

Welcome to Evolution 101!


----------



## james bond

When you have read the evolution.berkeley.edu website, then you can start arguing for evolution and not make a fool out of yourself.

On the creation science side, we have baraminology.  As I stated previously, natural selection is part of creation science.  With dogs, it's not natural selection but artificial selection.

"God displays His nature so clearly in His creatures that all people are without excuse (Romans 1:20). That display includes dog breeds. Charles Darwin, just like the rest of us, must have seen the Creator in the creatures all around him. Several dog breeds were always at his side, but his favorite was Polly, a terrier.





_Zuzana Burá ˇ nová | Thinkstockphotos.com_

American Hairless Terrier

Despite loving his pets dearly and constantly marveling at their personalities and abilities, Darwin was unwilling to credit their origin with the Creator. Why?

In a series of correspondences with his Christian friend Asa Gray, Darwin discussed why he didn’t believe variation within species was divinely guided.2 Like other Christian biologists in his day, Gray believed life had existed for eons of time and rejected Genesis’s teaching that God’s “very good” creation was corrupted by Adam’s sin. So Darwin showed Gray the logical consequence of his view. If death and suffering were always a part of nature, then his “god” must be unfeeling and distant, and he didn’t trifle with details like species variation. Gray had difficulty disputing Darwin’s claim.

Yet Darwin and the scientific community had no understanding of the complex genetics required to produce variation. Consequently, Darwin thought it should be easy to explain species variation by random natural processes without divine guidance, and he expected experiments with artificial breeding to prove his point. Not so.

Today, research in genetics is exploding, and scientists are beginning to see just how much is involved in producing and inheriting traits. While our understanding of the immense chemical systems necessary to coordinate this diversity has increased by leaps and bounds, researchers recognize that they are seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

Dogs are the focus of ongoing research to solve the mystery of vast variations within a species over a short amount of time. Until recently, many assumed that dogs (_Canis lupus familiaris_) were a recent subspecies of gray wolves (_Canis lupus_). As humans began to settle down and farm, wolves supposedly co-evolved with people over thousands of years. But how do you make a domestic dog out of killer wolf? It requires more than changing hair color!"

Suite Dogs


----------



## BreezeWood

RWS said:


> It has to happen in waves of genetic mutations. It's not just one animal that suddenly evolved and created a new species...




the mechanism for metamorphosis dictates from one physical presence to another and likewise by the same process common to all beings Spiritually may evolve an entirely new being from the parent to sibling without transitional intermediaries that will replicate from that point forwards.


there's hope bondy, three weeks is an eternity in politics. if Trump leaned left I mighthave voted in his direction, till the "nasty" sealed his demise.

.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 6000 years, we can only witness natural selection.
> 
> We cannot see evolution in such a short span of time. That takes millions of years of natural selection to separate a species.
> 
> Yet we have dogs, cats, wolves, lions, bears, meerkats, fish, bacteria, and apple trees. That took a very loooong time. Definitely not 6000 years.
> 
> Unless Santa the Creator can poof things into existence exactly as they were 6000 years ago, and bury fossils for fun and giggles, and completely make astronomy and physics be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You can't even get evolution right in your first example.  They have not been able to explain the dog.
> 
> "The origin of man's best friend has been a source of wonder and heated debate for centuries.
> 
> Even Charles Darwin was unsure whether the dog's true ancestry could be determined, because dog breeds vary so greatly. In fact, the domestic dog is far more variable in size, shape and behavior than any other living mammal, according to James Serpell, professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine and editor of "The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions With People" (Cambridge University Press, 1995)."
> 
> How Did Dogs Get to Be Dogs?
> 
> Here's the website that I used to learn about evolution.  Why don't you read up on it first before shooting off your piehole ha ha?
> 
> Welcome to Evolution 101!
Click to expand...


I included those organisms in order on purpose. Dogs and cats are a creation of human natural selection. This is the type of selection we normally see in our lifetimes. Though other forms of natural selection, like white and brown moths, occur because of our activity and not us necessarily meddling in their mating rituals. Most of the forms we see of natural selection that occurred in our lifetimes are created by human needs and wastes.

But differentiating a species takes millions of years. Dogs can still mate with wolves. If God created perfect organisms, then there is no need for natural selection. As He would have made them perfect from the get-go.

So allowing natural selection in your 6000-yr Earther doctrine, just means that you need it to continue your argument, but don't want to accept full-blown evolution.

Whatever you read on your religious websites about science, cannot be taken seriously until you know the science. Copy/pasting junk like that just shows that you have no idea what's going on in the world besides your birth-given religion...

What if you were born into a different religion? Would you still believe the stuff you're saying?


----------



## indiajo

IsaacNewton said:


> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.



Sincerely, thank you.


----------



## BreezeWood

indiajo said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about language is a good one.
> 
> If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.
> 
> There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.
> 
> We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
> 
> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.
> 
> That is quite a leap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sincerely, thank you.
Click to expand...

_*.*_
_*We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old **and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies**, each with hundreds of billions of stars.
*_

13.7 billion (years) just does not seem a long enough time for the above, the age of the universe someday should just be considered as indeterminable as it will forever become older and older with new discoveries ...

.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mudda said:


> So you're pretty messed up as well.
> Everything came from the Big Bang... until further notice.






Which still leaves the OP question unanswered.

I'm still going with a miracle occurred...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## RWS

The most important thing to remember, is that those of us who adhere to science, will not be willing to kill everyone on the planet due to a transgression about a supernatural being.


----------



## HUGGY

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> "Then what kick started the universe?"
> 
> Yo Mama.


----------



## Mudda

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****



That we don't know the how or the why yet doesn't automatically point to an invisible being that wants us to obey it or burn.

Ex: the Big Bang could be the result of a super massive black hole that explodes and spits out new time and space, or the time and space that it sucked in... No invisible person waving a magic wand necessary.
Not saying that it's not possible that the universe isn't made by some person we can't see... Just that the lack of proof either way leaves us still searching for the answer.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That we don't know the how or the why yet doesn't automatically point to an invisible being that wants us to obey it or burn.
> 
> Ex: the Big Bang could be the result of a super massive black hole that explodes and spits out new time and space, or the time and space that it sucked in... No invisible person waving a magic wand necessary.
> Not saying that it's not possible that the universe isn't made by some person we can't see... Just that the lack of proof either way leaves us still searching for the answer.
Click to expand...

But the laws of nature which came into existence at the moment space and time were created and pre-destined beings that know and create does.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That we don't know the how or the why yet doesn't automatically point to an invisible being that wants us to obey it or burn.
> 
> Ex: the Big Bang could be the result of a super massive black hole that explodes and spits out new time and space, or the time and space that it sucked in... No invisible person waving a magic wand necessary.
> Not saying that it's not possible that the universe isn't made by some person we can't see... Just that the lack of proof either way leaves us still searching for the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the laws of nature which came into existence at the moment space and time were created and pre-destined beings that know and create does.
Click to expand...

Maybe those laws of nature existed before our universe was created, and have also created other universes. Maybe there's no invisible being overseeing our particular universe and hoping we worship it.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mudda said:


> That we don't know the how or the why yet doesn't automatically point to an invisible being that wants us to obey it or burn.
> 
> Ex: the Big Bang could be the result of a super massive black hole that explodes and spits out new time and space, or the time and space that it sucked in... No invisible person waving a magic wand necessary.
> Not saying that it's not possible that the universe isn't made by some person we can't see... Just that the lack of proof either way leaves us still searching for the answer.







Where have I suggested that God is an invisible being?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

HUGGY said:


> space!







According to 'theory' time, matter, and space, did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

Looks like you're asking people to accept a 'Creation Theory' to me.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mudda said:


> Maybe those laws of nature existed before our universe was created, and have also created other universes. Maybe there's no invisible being overseeing our particular universe and hoping we worship it.








Oh!!!!! So now there are laws that we are required to follow and some invisible "higher(?)" planes  of existence (that may or may not exist) too at the alter of scientific theology!

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## HUGGY

Damaged Eagle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> space!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 97230
> 
> According to 'theory' time, matter, and space, did not exist prior to the Big Bang.
> 
> Looks like you're asking people to accept a 'Creation Theory' to me.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Not at all.  MY theory is that the "bang" got started with an imbalance in the energy of what was and started a chain reaction into what we have now.  I see no evidence that there was any conscious aspect to the Bang.  There is and therefore was no creation, intelligent or otherwise.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

HUGGY said:


> Not at all.  MY theory is that the "bang" got started with an imbalance in the energy of what was and started a chain reaction into what we have now.  I see no evidence that there was any conscious aspect to the Bang.  There is and therefore was no creation, intelligent or otherwise.
> 
> space!







Still sounds like you want everyone to believe that everything just started spontaneously and violate Newton's Laws Of Motion while you're at it too.

Sounds like Creationism to me.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## RWS

Newton's laws are based on observations of matter in the state that we know it.

The period of expansion was before matter was formed and was just quantum particles.

Once it coalesced into matter, it followed Newtonian physics.

What part are you chuckling about.


----------



## BreezeWood

RWS said:


> Newton's laws are based on observations of matter in the state that we know it.
> 
> The period of expansion was before matter was formed and was just quantum particles.
> 
> Once it coalesced into matter, it followed Newtonian physics.
> 
> What part are you chuckling about.


.


RWS said:


> What part are you chuckling about.




hu-o, someone else aready beat you to it - had no effect ...


forces such as gravity may always exist not necessarily matter.

.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 6000 years, we can only witness natural selection.
> 
> We cannot see evolution in such a short span of time. That takes millions of years of natural selection to separate a species.
> 
> Yet we have dogs, cats, wolves, lions, bears, meerkats, fish, bacteria, and apple trees. That took a very loooong time. Definitely not 6000 years.
> 
> Unless Santa the Creator can poof things into existence exactly as they were 6000 years ago, and bury fossils for fun and giggles, and completely make astronomy and physics be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You can't even get evolution right in your first example.  They have not been able to explain the dog.
> 
> "The origin of man's best friend has been a source of wonder and heated debate for centuries.
> 
> Even Charles Darwin was unsure whether the dog's true ancestry could be determined, because dog breeds vary so greatly. In fact, the domestic dog is far more variable in size, shape and behavior than any other living mammal, according to James Serpell, professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine and editor of "The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions With People" (Cambridge University Press, 1995)."
> 
> How Did Dogs Get to Be Dogs?
> 
> Here's the website that I used to learn about evolution.  Why don't you read up on it first before shooting off your piehole ha ha?
> 
> Welcome to Evolution 101!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I included those organisms in order on purpose. Dogs and cats are a creation of human natural selection. This is the type of selection we normally see in our lifetimes. Though other forms of natural selection, like white and brown moths, occur because of our activity and not us necessarily meddling in their mating rituals. Most of the forms we see of natural selection that occurred in our lifetimes are created by human needs and wastes.
> 
> But differentiating a species takes millions of years. Dogs can still mate with wolves. If God created perfect organisms, then there is no need for natural selection. As He would have made them perfect from the get-go.
> 
> So allowing natural selection in your 6000-yr Earther doctrine, just means that you need it to continue your argument, but don't want to accept full-blown evolution.
> 
> Whatever you read on your religious websites about science, cannot be taken seriously until you know the science. Copy/pasting junk like that just shows that you have no idea what's going on in the world besides your birth-given religion...
> 
> What if you were born into a different religion? Would you still believe the stuff you're saying?
Click to expand...


>>Dogs and cats are a creation of human natural selection.<<






There is no human natural selection.


----------



## BreezeWood

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 6000 years, we can only witness natural selection.
> 
> We cannot see evolution in such a short span of time. That takes millions of years of natural selection to separate a species.
> 
> Yet we have dogs, cats, wolves, lions, bears, meerkats, fish, bacteria, and apple trees. That took a very loooong time. Definitely not 6000 years.
> 
> Unless Santa the Creator can poof things into existence exactly as they were 6000 years ago, and bury fossils for fun and giggles, and completely make astronomy and physics be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You can't even get evolution right in your first example.  They have not been able to explain the dog.
> 
> "The origin of man's best friend has been a source of wonder and heated debate for centuries.
> 
> Even Charles Darwin was unsure whether the dog's true ancestry could be determined, because dog breeds vary so greatly. In fact, the domestic dog is far more variable in size, shape and behavior than any other living mammal, according to James Serpell, professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine and editor of "The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions With People" (Cambridge University Press, 1995)."
> 
> How Did Dogs Get to Be Dogs?
> 
> Here's the website that I used to learn about evolution.  Why don't you read up on it first before shooting off your piehole ha ha?
> 
> Welcome to Evolution 101!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I included those organisms in order on purpose. Dogs and cats are a creation of human natural selection. This is the type of selection we normally see in our lifetimes. Though other forms of natural selection, like white and brown moths, occur because of our activity and not us necessarily meddling in their mating rituals. Most of the forms we see of natural selection that occurred in our lifetimes are created by human needs and wastes.
> 
> But differentiating a species takes millions of years. Dogs can still mate with wolves. If God created perfect organisms, then there is no need for natural selection. As He would have made them perfect from the get-go.
> 
> So allowing natural selection in your 6000-yr Earther doctrine, just means that you need it to continue your argument, but don't want to accept full-blown evolution.
> 
> Whatever you read on your religious websites about science, cannot be taken seriously until you know the science. Copy/pasting junk like that just shows that you have no idea what's going on in the world besides your birth-given religion...
> 
> What if you were born into a different religion? Would you still believe the stuff you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Dogs and cats are a creation of human natural selection.<<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no human natural selection.
Click to expand...

.


james bond said:


> There is no human natural selection.







> Body Size Changes Among National Collegiate Athletic Association New England Division III Football Players, 1956-2014: Comparison With Age-Matched ...  - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Body Size Changes Among National Collegiate Athletic Association New England Division III Football Players, 1956-2014: Comparison With Age-Matched Population Controls.
> 
> * RESULTS: Among NESCAC linemen, absolute and relative changes over time in body weight and body mass index exceeded corresponding changes in the NHANES population controls. New England Small College Athletic Conference offensive linemen body weights increased by 37.5% from 1956 to 2014 (192 to 264 lb [86.4 to 118.8 kg]),*


_
*offensive linemen body weights increased by 37.5% from 1956 to 2014*_



of course not bond, that's why Alabama selects the 2 star athletes the same as for the 5 star's ... .

.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 6000 years, we can only witness natural selection.
> 
> We cannot see evolution in such a short span of time. That takes millions of years of natural selection to separate a species.
> 
> Yet we have dogs, cats, wolves, lions, bears, meerkats, fish, bacteria, and apple trees. That took a very loooong time. Definitely not 6000 years.
> 
> Unless Santa the Creator can poof things into existence exactly as they were 6000 years ago, and bury fossils for fun and giggles, and completely make astronomy and physics be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You can't even get evolution right in your first example.  They have not been able to explain the dog.
> 
> "The origin of man's best friend has been a source of wonder and heated debate for centuries.
> 
> Even Charles Darwin was unsure whether the dog's true ancestry could be determined, because dog breeds vary so greatly. In fact, the domestic dog is far more variable in size, shape and behavior than any other living mammal, according to James Serpell, professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine and editor of "The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions With People" (Cambridge University Press, 1995)."
> 
> How Did Dogs Get to Be Dogs?
> 
> Here's the website that I used to learn about evolution.  Why don't you read up on it first before shooting off your piehole ha ha?
> 
> Welcome to Evolution 101!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I included those organisms in order on purpose. Dogs and cats are a creation of human natural selection. This is the type of selection we normally see in our lifetimes. Though other forms of natural selection, like white and brown moths, occur because of our activity and not us necessarily meddling in their mating rituals. Most of the forms we see of natural selection that occurred in our lifetimes are created by human needs and wastes.
> 
> But differentiating a species takes millions of years. Dogs can still mate with wolves. If God created perfect organisms, then there is no need for natural selection. As He would have made them perfect from the get-go.
> 
> So allowing natural selection in your 6000-yr Earther doctrine, just means that you need it to continue your argument, but don't want to accept full-blown evolution.
> 
> Whatever you read on your religious websites about science, cannot be taken seriously until you know the science. Copy/pasting junk like that just shows that you have no idea what's going on in the world besides your birth-given religion...
> 
> What if you were born into a different religion? Would you still believe the stuff you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Dogs and cats are a creation of human natural selection.<<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no human natural selection.
Click to expand...


Are you serious?!? How did wolves become domesticated dogs then, and their hundreds of subsequent breeds? And fluffy cats too... 

Now I think you're just trollin dude... 

Give it up.


----------



## RWS

Did i win this shit? Just kiddin!


----------



## onefour1

Perhaps creation means to take of materials that already exist (have always existed) and make something.  Perhaps the idea of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) is a false notion.  Maybe God is the great organizer of the universe.  Watch this video series on the problems of ex nihilo creation.



		HTML:
	

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWsQiyc832k&list=PLbpyH--hzXKWn2jm8BClH9MxxLwwWnAea


----------



## RWS

onefour1 said:


> Perhaps creation means to take of materials that already exist (have always existed) and make something.  Perhaps the idea of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) is a false notion.  Maybe God is the great organizer of the universe.  Watch this video series on the problems of ex nihilo creation.



I just watched webisode 1 in the series. Thank you for that! Looking forward to watching more! He actually explains things very clearly, and in terms most people understand. I like that in a narrator! Will comment more as I continue...


----------



## Damaged Eagle

RWS said:


> Newton's laws are based on observations of matter in the state that we know it.
> 
> The period of expansion was before matter was formed and was just quantum particles.
> 
> Once it coalesced into matter, it followed Newtonian physics.
> 
> What part are you chuckling about.








Are you suggesting that Newton's laws can't be applied at the quantum level?

I suppose next you'll be telling me the laws of conservation of matter and energy are meaningless also.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## RWS

I don't understand your post. You seem to agree with and understand the science, yet you argue it in the same post.

Einstein's and Newton's laws don't apply at the quantum level. That's why it's "spooky", as he called it...


----------



## RWS

That was a great video you posted of a cool sounding song. But if you're not gonna back it up with science or religion, it was wasted here...

But I did appreciate it!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

RWS said:


> I don't understand your post. You seem to agree with and understand the science, yet you argue it in the same post.
> 
> Einstein's and Newton's laws don't apply at the quantum level. That's why it's "spooky", as he called it...






Yet this discussion thread is on page 207 because of the premise.

*****CHUCKLE*****




HINT: I chuckle because my background is electronics and physics.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

RWS said:


> That was a great video you posted of a cool sounding song. But if you're not gonna back it up with science or religion, it was wasted here...
> 
> But I did appreciate it!








You should listen to that particular song with headsets on, laying back in a comfortable chair, with your eyes closed.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## ding

IsaacNewton said:


> To believe in _any_ god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.



Yes.



IsaacNewton said:


> That is quite a leap.


'

Not really.


----------



## ding

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "If God doesn't exist..."
> 
> There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.


How do you know?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If God doesn't exist..."
> 
> There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
Click to expand...

No proof.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If God doesn't exist..."
> 
> There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof.
Click to expand...

What proof do you have that He doesn't exist?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If God doesn't exist..."
> 
> There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What proof do you have that He doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

The absence of proof that he does.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If God doesn't exist..."
> 
> There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What proof do you have that He doesn't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of proof that he does.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as absence of proof in science for proof or disproof of something.  Maybe you should look up the concept of falsifiability.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If God doesn't exist..."
> 
> There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What proof do you have that He doesn't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of proof that he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as absence of proof in science for proof or disproof of something.  Maybe you should look up the concept of falsifiability.
Click to expand...

It is probably impossible to prove that something made up doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the stuff up to prove.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> No proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What proof do you have that He doesn't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of proof that he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as absence of proof in science for proof or disproof of something.  Maybe you should look up the concept of falsifiability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is probably impossible to prove that something made up doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the stuff up to prove.
Click to expand...

No.  It's not.  The burden is on you to discover it.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> No proof.
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do you have that He doesn't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of proof that he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as absence of proof in science for proof or disproof of something.  Maybe you should look up the concept of falsifiability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is probably impossible to prove that something made up doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the stuff up to prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's not.  The burden is on you to discover it.
Click to expand...

You said god exists, it's up to you to prove it, which you haven't yet.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do you have that He doesn't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> The absence of proof that he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as absence of proof in science for proof or disproof of something.  Maybe you should look up the concept of falsifiability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is probably impossible to prove that something made up doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the stuff up to prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's not.  The burden is on you to discover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said god exists, it's up to you to prove it, which you haven't yet.
Click to expand...

No. It's not. The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The absence of proof that he does.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as absence of proof in science for proof or disproof of something.  Maybe you should look up the concept of falsifiability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is probably impossible to prove that something made up doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the stuff up to prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's not.  The burden is on you to discover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said god exists, it's up to you to prove it, which you haven't yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's not. The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
Click to expand...

You mean "No. I can't."


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as absence of proof in science for proof or disproof of something.  Maybe you should look up the concept of falsifiability.
> 
> 
> 
> It is probably impossible to prove that something made up doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the stuff up to prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's not.  The burden is on you to discover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said god exists, it's up to you to prove it, which you haven't yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's not. The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean "No. I can't."
Click to expand...

No.  I wrote what I meant.  The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is probably impossible to prove that something made up doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the stuff up to prove.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's not.  The burden is on you to discover it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said god exists, it's up to you to prove it, which you haven't yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's not. The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean "No. I can't."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I wrote what I meant.  The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
Click to expand...

The burden is on me to discover that what you said is nonsense? I already did that.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's not.  The burden is on you to discover it.
> 
> 
> 
> You said god exists, it's up to you to prove it, which you haven't yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. It's not. The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean "No. I can't."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I wrote what I meant.  The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden is on me to discover that what you said is nonsense? I already did that.
Click to expand...

No.  The burden is on you to discover proof of God.  I couldn't care less what you believe.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said god exists, it's up to you to prove it, which you haven't yet.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's not. The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean "No. I can't."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I wrote what I meant.  The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden is on me to discover that what you said is nonsense? I already did that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The burden is on you to discover proof of God.  I couldn't care less what you believe.
Click to expand...

Where do I look?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's not. The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean "No. I can't."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I wrote what I meant.  The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden is on me to discover that what you said is nonsense? I already did that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The burden is on you to discover proof of God.  I couldn't care less what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do I look?
Click to expand...

Your conscience.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean "No. I can't."
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I wrote what I meant.  The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden is on me to discover that what you said is nonsense? I already did that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The burden is on you to discover proof of God.  I couldn't care less what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do I look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your conscience.
Click to expand...

So I have to make Him up myself? Bummer.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I wrote what I meant.  The burden is on you to discover it.  I don't give a crap what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> The burden is on me to discover that what you said is nonsense? I already did that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The burden is on you to discover proof of God.  I couldn't care less what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do I look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I have to make Him up myself? Bummer.
Click to expand...

Why?  Don't you have a conscience?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The burden is on me to discover that what you said is nonsense? I already did that.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The burden is on you to discover proof of God.  I couldn't care less what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do I look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I have to make Him up myself? Bummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
Click to expand...

That totally sucks if I have to make Him up myself. I thought you said this was a real being?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The burden is on you to discover proof of God.  I couldn't care less what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do I look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I have to make Him up myself? Bummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That totally sucks if I have to make Him up myself. I thought you said this was a real being?
Click to expand...

Why?  Don't you have a conscience?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do I look?
> 
> 
> 
> Your conscience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I have to make Him up myself? Bummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That totally sucks if I have to make Him up myself. I thought you said this was a real being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
Click to expand...

Of course, but isn't your god real?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> So I have to make Him up myself? Bummer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That totally sucks if I have to make Him up myself. I thought you said this was a real being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, but isn't your god real?
Click to expand...

Then it shouldn't be that hard for you to find Him.  Problem solved.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I have to make Him up myself? Bummer.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That totally sucks if I have to make Him up myself. I thought you said this was a real being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, but isn't your god real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it shouldn't be that hard for you to find Him.  Problem solved.
Click to expand...

You make no sense.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
> 
> 
> 
> That totally sucks if I have to make Him up myself. I thought you said this was a real being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  Don't you have a conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, but isn't your god real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it shouldn't be that hard for you to find Him.  Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make no sense.
Click to expand...

That's because you are at odds with nature and nature rejects you.  If you were one with nature, you would understand.


----------



## RWS

pretty friggin funny exchange! Nature rejects nobody dude...

But "lack of God' is evident in everyday activities. Murders, rapes, innocent people/children getting killed, stuff that "God" should not allow to happen, yet he/she/it allows it to happen, constantly, and to our horror!

And it happens to people who are devoutly religious people, atheists, and innocents.

He either doesn't care, or doesn't exist...

It's that simple. Either way, it's not something to worship and argue over...

The goodness we find in our hearts, especially during the holidays, is a culmination of the protection we need to provide to our species. We cannot survive being a species that hates and kills each other over imaginary beings!

C'mon... let's get real! Let's learn to love each other. Your faith is something you keep private to yoursef, and cherish it and hold it sacred. And do not try to force it on anybody else...

It would be so simple, if it was that way.


----------



## RWS

Let's all have a happy time together, and if this helps, this gets me happy every time! The song, and the movie!


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> pretty friggin funny exchange! Nature rejects nobody dude...
> 
> But "lack of God' is evident in everyday activities. Murders, rapes, innocent people/children getting killed, stuff that "God" should not allow to happen, yet he/she/it allows it to happen, constantly, and to our horror!
> 
> And it happens to people who are devoutly religious people, atheists, and innocents.
> 
> He either doesn't care, or doesn't exist...
> 
> It's that simple. Either way, it's not something to worship and argue over...
> 
> The goodness we find in our hearts, especially during the holidays, is a culmination of the protection we need to provide to our species. We cannot survive being a species that hates and kills each other over imaginary beings!
> 
> C'mon... let's get real! Let's learn to love each other. Your faith is something you keep private to yoursef, and cherish it and hold it sacred. And do not try to force it on anybody else...
> 
> It would be so simple, if it was that way.


So what you are saying is that you don't believe there can be a God as long as bad things happen to good people?  That's like saying you can't be an honest person because you did something dishonest or you can't be an intelligent person because you did something stupid.  No offense but that is a really stupid reason to not believe in God.  

Nature rejects nobody?  Are you familiar with the concept of natural selection?  Please tell me that you do not believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.  Mudda's going to find that out soon enough.  

More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> pretty friggin funny exchange! Nature rejects nobody dude...
> 
> But "lack of God' is evident in everyday activities. Murders, rapes, innocent people/children getting killed, stuff that "God" should not allow to happen, yet he/she/it allows it to happen, constantly, and to our horror!
> 
> And it happens to people who are devoutly religious people, atheists, and innocents.
> 
> He either doesn't care, or doesn't exist...
> 
> It's that simple. Either way, it's not something to worship and argue over...
> 
> The goodness we find in our hearts, especially during the holidays, is a culmination of the protection we need to provide to our species. We cannot survive being a species that hates and kills each other over imaginary beings!
> 
> C'mon... let's get real! Let's learn to love each other. Your faith is something you keep private to yoursef, and cherish it and hold it sacred. And do not try to force it on anybody else...
> 
> It would be so simple, if it was that way.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that you don't believe there can be a God as long as bad things happen to good people?  That's like saying you can't be an honest person because you did something dishonest or you can't be an intelligent person because you did something stupid.  No offense but that is a really stupid reason to not believe in God.
> 
> Nature rejects nobody?  Are you familiar with the concept of natural selection?  Please tell me that you do not believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.  Mudda's going to find that out soon enough.
> 
> More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.
Click to expand...


Wow you have it completely wrong...  You are so off on your perspective... You need an intervention!

You didn't listen to a single thing I said, and just went off on your own warp on each quote... 

You must be related to the OP. That's cool though. Reread your quotes, and think about them more, before I make fun...

I'll give you until tomorrow night to adjust them...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> pretty friggin funny exchange! Nature rejects nobody dude...
> 
> But "lack of God' is evident in everyday activities. Murders, rapes, innocent people/children getting killed, stuff that "God" should not allow to happen, yet he/she/it allows it to happen, constantly, and to our horror!
> 
> And it happens to people who are devoutly religious people, atheists, and innocents.
> 
> He either doesn't care, or doesn't exist...
> 
> It's that simple. Either way, it's not something to worship and argue over...
> 
> The goodness we find in our hearts, especially during the holidays, is a culmination of the protection we need to provide to our species. We cannot survive being a species that hates and kills each other over imaginary beings!
> 
> C'mon... let's get real! Let's learn to love each other. Your faith is something you keep private to yoursef, and cherish it and hold it sacred. And do not try to force it on anybody else...
> 
> It would be so simple, if it was that way.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that you don't believe there can be a God as long as bad things happen to good people?  That's like saying you can't be an honest person because you did something dishonest or you can't be an intelligent person because you did something stupid.  No offense but that is a really stupid reason to not believe in God.
> 
> Nature rejects nobody?  Are you familiar with the concept of natural selection?  Please tell me that you do not believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.  Mudda's going to find that out soon enough.
> 
> More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you have it completely wrong...  You are so off on your perspective... You need an intervention!
> 
> You didn't listen to a single thing I said, and just went off on your own warp on each quote...
> 
> You must be related to the OP. That's cool though. Reread your quotes, and think about them more, before I make fun...
> 
> I'll give you until tomorrow night to adjust them...
Click to expand...

Why wait?  Please do show me the error of my way.

Virtue is the greatest organizing principle.  When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow.  When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur.  How is this not nature accepting or rejecting us? Do  you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? 

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it.  Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good.  So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil. 

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good?  The answer is simple... outcomes.  Moral laws are not like physical laws.  When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate.  Not so for moral laws.  The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail.  And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform).  Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.


----------



## RWS

I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement. 

You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.

It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.

Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.

Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.

Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.


I guess we don't see eye to eye after all.  I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures.  I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.  I don't believe you are being objective.  I believe your assessment is biased.  You have not weighed the good and the bad.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we don't see eye to eye after all.  I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures.  I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.  I don't believe you are being objective.  I believe your assessment is biased.  You have not weighed the good and the bad.
Click to expand...

Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we don't see eye to eye after all.  I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures.  I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.  I don't believe you are being objective.  I believe your assessment is biased.  You have not weighed the good and the bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.
Click to expand...

No.  Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.

Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we don't see eye to eye after all.  I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures.  I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.  I don't believe you are being objective.  I believe your assessment is biased.  You have not weighed the good and the bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.
> 
> Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
Click to expand...

Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.


----------



## RWNJ

RWS said:


> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.


Where, in the Bible, does it instruct Christians to go out kill each other for giggles? I must have missed that one. That, or you're a blithering idiot.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we don't see eye to eye after all.  I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures.  I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.  I don't believe you are being objective.  I believe your assessment is biased.  You have not weighed the good and the bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.
> 
> Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.
Click to expand...

Sure.  That is moral relativity.  My question was directed to you.  Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we don't see eye to eye after all.  I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures.  I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.  I don't believe you are being objective.  I believe your assessment is biased.  You have not weighed the good and the bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.
> 
> Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  That is moral relativity.  My question was directed to you.  Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
Click to expand...

How can anyone know what the future will hold?
So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we don't see eye to eye after all.  I believe we know the moral law because we are God's creatures.  I believe that by any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.  I don't believe you are being objective.  I believe your assessment is biased.  You have not weighed the good and the bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.
> 
> Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  That is moral relativity.  My question was directed to you.  Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can anyone know what the future will hold?
> So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.
Click to expand...

So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality is subjective, no a universal force. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.
> 
> Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  That is moral relativity.  My question was directed to you.  Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can anyone know what the future will hold?
> So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.
Click to expand...

That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no. 
You confused yourself with your own questions.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Morality is not subjective, but thank you for proving my point that atheists/socialists practice moral relativity.
> 
> Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  That is moral relativity.  My question was directed to you.  Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can anyone know what the future will hold?
> So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no.
> You confused yourself with your own questions.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I did.

 Do you believe that slavery is moral? You answered no

Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? You answered yes

Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? You answered maybe

I am not asking you how society answers these questions.  I am asking you how you personally answer these questions.  

I'm happy enough with your answers because I believe you don't have a defined moral code.  That's why you do the things you do.  Are you having fun yet?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was moral to some people in history. You suffer an EPIC FAILURE.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  That is moral relativity.  My question was directed to you.  Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can anyone know what the future will hold?
> So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no.
> You confused yourself with your own questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe I did.
> 
> Do you believe that slavery is moral? You answered no
> 
> Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? You answered yes
> 
> Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? You answered maybe
> 
> I am not asking you how society answers these questions.  I am asking you how you personally answer these questions.
> 
> I'm happy enough with your answers because I believe you don't have a defined moral code.  That's why you do the things you do.  Are you having fun yet?
Click to expand...

It was moral to own slaves in the US at one point. And it might be considered normal in the future. How does that reflect on me?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  That is moral relativity.  My question was directed to you.  Do you believe that slavery is moral?  Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral?  Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral?  If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone know what the future will hold?
> So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no.
> You confused yourself with your own questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe I did.
> 
> Do you believe that slavery is moral? You answered no
> 
> Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? You answered yes
> 
> Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? You answered maybe
> 
> I am not asking you how society answers these questions.  I am asking you how you personally answer these questions.
> 
> I'm happy enough with your answers because I believe you don't have a defined moral code.  That's why you do the things you do.  Are you having fun yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was moral to own slaves in the US at one point. And it might be considered normal in the future. How does that reflect on me?
Click to expand...

Do you believe it was moral of them to own slaves in the past? 

Do you believe it would be moral to own slaves in the future?


----------



## RWS

RWNJ said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Where, in the Bible, does it instruct Christians to go out kill each other for giggles? I must have missed that one. That, or you're a blithering idiot.
Click to expand...


It's not in the Bible, it's in the religious leaders words and actions that the followers have to follow or die. That's exactly the point. 

They instruct you to kill people for their benefit, and use the Bible as the reason. And everyone is obliged to do so, whether they check first or not, and the Church compels them to do so.... And so they killed, raped, and looted with glee. Because "God" commanded them to do so... 

Now if you cannot admit that it was wrong of "God" to command those actions, then you have to at least admit it was wrong for God's religious leaders to command those slaughters and rapes and genocides. And torture that hurts to even think about...

Either way, it is not a good sign for God being real. It's just something people in power use to make others follow their will. And it applies in every religion.


----------



## RWS

You have to remember, back then people didn't have guns and rifles and long-range-missiles. 

They had to fight hand-to-hand. Which means a very high probability of getting killed after enough battles. 

How do you get people to sign up for that? 

Easy! Tell them that their God demands them to, and they will live in eternal Heaven or Paradise or Valhalla or whatever!  


How many people that supposedly went to those paradises for their martyrdom, do you really think believe it now... 

I'll tell you... zero.


----------



## RWS

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so  they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful. 

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.
> 
> In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.
> 
> Humans use slavery so  they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.
> 
> Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.
> 
> The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.


Do you believe morals are subjective?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone know what the future will hold?
> So my answers are: no, yes, and maybe. You fail epically again.
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you are admitting that under some circumstance you believe that slavery could be moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what you asked. You said in the past or in the future. And do I believe that it's moral, and I said no.
> You confused yourself with your own questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe I did.
> 
> Do you believe that slavery is moral? You answered no
> 
> Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? You answered yes
> 
> Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? You answered maybe
> 
> I am not asking you how society answers these questions.  I am asking you how you personally answer these questions.
> 
> I'm happy enough with your answers because I believe you don't have a defined moral code.  That's why you do the things you do.  Are you having fun yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was moral to own slaves in the US at one point. And it might be considered normal in the future. How does that reflect on me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe it was moral of them to own slaves in the past?
> 
> Do you believe it would be moral to own slaves in the future?
Click to expand...

They felt morally justified, yes.
People in the future might also justify slavery, like they do today in some parts of the world, as in sexual slavery, for example.


----------



## RWNJ

RWS said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Where, in the Bible, does it instruct Christians to go out kill each other for giggles? I must have missed that one. That, or you're a blithering idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Bible, it's in the religious leaders words and actions that the followers have to follow or die. That's exactly the point.
> 
> They instruct you to kill people for their benefit, and use the Bible as the reason. And everyone is obliged to do so, whether they check first or not, and the Church compels them to do so.... And so they killed, raped, and looted with glee. Because "God" commanded them to do so...
> 
> Now if you cannot admit that it was wrong of "God" to command those actions, then you have to at least admit it was wrong for God's religious leaders to command those slaughters and rapes and genocides. And torture that hurts to even think about...
> 
> Either way, it is not a good sign for God being real. It's just something people in power use to make others follow their will. And it applies in every religion.
Click to expand...

You have confirmed what I just said. The Bible has nothing to do with such behavior. It is the actions of evil men. People who engage in such actions are not Christians. End of story.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.
> 
> In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.
> 
> Humans use slavery so  they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.
> 
> Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.
> 
> The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.


If slavery was for the good of the population and not so humans could be lazy and make money, would you accept slavery then?


----------



## RWS

RWNJ said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that nature rejects nobody. Based on what you're saying, I think we are in agreement.
> 
> You just misinterpreted that, i think. But I'm with you and I agree that morality is not something that "God" gave us.
> 
> It is an evolutionary trait that we, and other life forms, evolved to guarantee the success of our species'. Rather than killing each other for shits and giggles.
> 
> Only religion promotes killing each other for giggles. They try to tell us that what we define as "good" was given to us by "god". But no, the truth is that animals don't randomly kill their own species for fun or sport. They realize the importance of keeping their own alive. A species that goes around randomly killing others of its own species will soon disappear. It is not "god" that teaches them this, it is evolutionary principles.
> 
> Only religion tells people to kill other people and promotes genocide for no reason other than imaginary ideas.
> 
> Of course, there are crazy people out there that just kill people for no reason, but they are not organized to do that. The sole purpose of religion is to amass legions of people willing to donate, die, and kill, for the whims of their leaders and their interests, based on the idea that they will rot in hell if they don't, or go to heaven if they do. It's so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Where, in the Bible, does it instruct Christians to go out kill each other for giggles? I must have missed that one. That, or you're a blithering idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in the Bible, it's in the religious leaders words and actions that the followers have to follow or die. That's exactly the point.
> 
> They instruct you to kill people for their benefit, and use the Bible as the reason. And everyone is obliged to do so, whether they check first or not, and the Church compels them to do so.... And so they killed, raped, and looted with glee. Because "God" commanded them to do so...
> 
> Now if you cannot admit that it was wrong of "God" to command those actions, then you have to at least admit it was wrong for God's religious leaders to command those slaughters and rapes and genocides. And torture that hurts to even think about...
> 
> Either way, it is not a good sign for God being real. It's just something people in power use to make others follow their will. And it applies in every religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have confirmed what I just said. The Bible has nothing to do with such behavior. It is the actions of evil men. People who engage in such actions are not Christians. End of story.
Click to expand...


But they were following the words of the Pope. The all-see. Speaks directly to God. Why is your version of Christianity not ready to follow the words of the Pope next time? Was there something wrong with previous versions of Christianity? And if there was, how do you know your version is right?


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.
> 
> In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.
> 
> Humans use slavery so  they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.
> 
> Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.
> 
> The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery was for the good of the population and not so humans could be lazy and make money, would you accept slavery then?
Click to expand...


You're putting forth a straw-man argument. Whatever my answer is, you already have a reply ready for either. So my answer isn't relevant at this point. You're just waiting for an opportunity to attack something.

State your point, and then I will comment on that... I already told you what I think and you have your answer. Don't know why you're seeking more...


----------



## RWS

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?


I am asking if your morals are relative, not anyone else's.


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> [
> Do you believe it was moral of them to own slaves in the past?
> 
> Do you believe it would be moral to own slaves in the future?



Do you?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.
> 
> In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.
> 
> Humans use slavery so  they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.
> 
> Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.
> 
> The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> If slavery was for the good of the population and not so humans could be lazy and make money, would you accept slavery then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're putting forth a straw-man argument. Whatever my answer is, you already have a reply ready for either. So my answer isn't relevant at this point. You're just waiting for an opportunity to attack something.
> 
> State your point, and then I will comment on that... I already told you what I think and you have your answer. Don't know why you're seeking more...
Click to expand...

No.  I'm having a conversation with you and you made two statements that seemed to conflict one another.  I am trying to reconcile them.  I can't be making a straw-man argument because I am restating what you have said.  You wrote that slavery was not moral when it comes to humans, but in the insect world it is rampant because that is how they survive and it is done for the good of the population, but in the human world it is done because of laziness and greed.  So I asked you if it were done in the human world for the same reasons in the insect world if you thought it would then be moral.  My point?  I am trying to determine if your beliefs on good and evil change based on the reasons.  It seems to me that you are saying they would change.  In other words, let's say you support abortion, ok?  And if later the state determined - like China did - that it was in the good of the population to limit births to 1 child per couple, would you support forced abortions?  Or would your position change?  Because as near as I can tell, you don't support slavery, but if it were being done for the good of the population, you would.


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Do you believe it was moral of them to own slaves in the past?
> 
> Do you believe it would be moral to own slaves in the future?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
Click to expand...

No.  It has never been moral to own  another person and it will never be moral to own another person.  I don't believe in moral relativity.


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> No.  It has never been moral to own  another person and it will never be moral to own another person.  I don't believe in moral relativity.



I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It has never been moral to own  another person and it will never be moral to own another person.  I don't believe in moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
Click to expand...

True.  I only know how I feel today.  I could make that same argument about how one feels today about what he would feel in 2216.  However some people do believe today that right and wrong is determined by groupthink.  That whatever the group thinks is moral is moral.  So if in 2216, the group believes it is in man's best interest to own other people, then that would be moral.


----------



## BreezeWood

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It has never been moral to own  another person and it will never be moral to own another person.  I don't believe in moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
Click to expand...

. 


Dr Grump said:


> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.




- is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It has never been moral to own  another person and it will never be moral to own another person.  I don't believe in moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

lol, whatever you say, brother.  Good thing you are not sensitive about this.  The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks.  In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites.  Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America.  Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It has never been moral to own  another person and it will never be moral to own another person.  I don't believe in moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, whatever you say, brother.  Good thing you are not sensitive about this.  The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks.  In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites.  Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America.  Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?




that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.

.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It has never been moral to own  another person and it will never be moral to own another person.  I don't believe in moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, whatever you say, brother.  Good thing you are not sensitive about this.  The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks.  In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites.  Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America.  Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It has never been moral to own  another person and it will never be moral to own another person.  I don't believe in moral relativity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, whatever you say, brother.  Good thing you are not sensitive about this.  The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks.  In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites.  Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America.  Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.
Click to expand...

.


BreezeWood said:


> ... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.





ding said:


> I am arguing the exact opposite.




no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.

.


----------



## Czernobog

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


The problem is that you have made a mistake about science.  Science doesn't "hold all of the answers"; nor does it claim to.  Science freely admits that it doesn't know.  However, it follows that admission with an invitation: "Let's find out!"

It is *religion* that claims to have all of the answers, because in religion, whenever one runs up against "I don't know", religion responds with the ready made response: "God did it,"

And, therein is the end of exploration, and research.  After all, why look for reasons, when the answer is already known?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Czernobog said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you have made a mistake about science.  Science doesn't "hold all of the answers"; nor does it claim to.  Science freely admits that it doesn't know.  However, it follows that admission with an invitation: "Let's find out!"
> 
> It is *religion* that claims to have all of the answers, because in religion, whenever one runs up against "I don't know", religion responds with the ready made response: "God did it,"
> 
> And, therein is the end of exploration, and research.  After all, why look for reasons, when the answer is already known?
Click to expand...





Yet all the atheists appear to think they know that there is no God because they appear to think that science does hold all the answers.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. However, you will never know how you felt circa 1780 in Mississippi and you were a white land owner who farmed cotton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, whatever you say, brother.  Good thing you are not sensitive about this.  The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks.  In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites.  Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America.  Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that is how you read it.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking if your morals are relative, not anyone else's.
Click to expand...

My morals are my own. What are you trying to find out?

I don't have a religion that dictates what my morals are. I make them up as I think is right. And that is an evolutionary trait. Not a religious one.

So rather than trying to trap someone into your straw-man argument, why don't you say what you think about the morality of slavery?

Is slavery moral to you? And why or why not?


----------



## RWS

Damaged Eagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you have made a mistake about science.  Science doesn't "hold all of the answers"; nor does it claim to.  Science freely admits that it doesn't know.  However, it follows that admission with an invitation: "Let's find out!"
> 
> It is *religion* that claims to have all of the answers, because in religion, whenever one runs up against "I don't know", religion responds with the ready made response: "God did it,"
> 
> And, therein is the end of exploration, and research.  After all, why look for reasons, when the answer is already known?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 100535
> 
> Yet all the atheists appear to think they know that there is no God because they appear to think that science does hold all the answers.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Science doesn't have all the answers... yet. But it does have a huge chunk of them. Religion holds on by a thread, asking eternal questions that science has not answered yet (and probably never will).

Regardless of our debates, you are going to believe what you were born to believe, and there's no way for me to change your mind.

But I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to make you understand that your religion is highly likely not correct. And therefore there is no need to continue to kill and despise others that think differently than your religion.

Keep it as a personal faith, something that makes you feel good inside, but STOP trying to push it onto others and dictating the way the world should be, based on a Santa Claus religion.

Open your mind to reality. That's what I'm trying to help do. There are so many wondrous things to think about, once you step outside that religious coffin...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking if your morals are relative, not anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My morals are my own. What are you trying to find out?
> 
> I don't have a religion that dictates what my morals are. I make them up as I think is right. And that is an evolutionary trait. Not a religious one.
> 
> So rather than trying to trap someone into your straw-man argument, why don't you say what you think about the morality of slavery?
> 
> Is slavery moral to you? And why or why not?
Click to expand...

I couldn't be happier for you, but that wasn't even close to explaining the inconsistency of your previous comments.  Never mind.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> - is that because there wasn't an option for the black's to enslave whites as being a similarly realistic question (for them), christian ... * history by the way answers both your question and who the cowards were. and are.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you say, brother.  Good thing you are not sensitive about this.  The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks.  In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites.  Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America.  Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> I have no doubt that is how you read it.










history is replete with the evils of christianity as though their maturing was ever by their own accord, as exemplified by bing.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you say, brother.  Good thing you are not sensitive about this.  The reality is that there was an option for blacks to own blacks.  In fact, it is blacks who started the slave trade by enslaving other blacks in Africa and selling them to Arabs who then sold them to whites.  Not to mention the blacks in America who owned other blacks in America.  Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe slavery would be moral if blacks could own whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> history is replete with the evils of christianity as though their maturing was ever by their own accord, as exemplified by bing.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking if your morals are relative, not anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My morals are my own. What are you trying to find out?
> 
> I don't have a religion that dictates what my morals are. I make them up as I think is right. And that is an evolutionary trait. Not a religious one.
> 
> So rather than trying to trap someone into your straw-man argument, why don't you say what you think about the morality of slavery?
> 
> Is slavery moral to you? And why or why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you, but that wasn't even close to explaining the inconsistency of your previous comments.  Never mind.
Click to expand...


I have given you my answer to the question you posed. And yet you stand by, and don't answer it when asked of you.

Typical religious dude... 

You must have a point, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question. So now it is back on your lap! 

It's your turn.


----------



## RWS

Let me explain something really simple-wise...

If the God theory never existed, and all these religions didn't pop up around him/her/it, and destroy societies and knowledge throughout history, we would probably be travelling to other star systems by now.

We would be soooooo far advanced it not for the purge of religion, and burning of knowledge.... and having to start all over again every so often...

Really kicks my ass when i think about that... the religious purges... friggin jerks!

We would probably have figured everything out by now, if not for the constant religious reboots that our crazy beliefs have caused us to do.

So get your butts back to your private faiths, and stop trying to change the world, for something that has no more evidence than Santa Claus... You're ruining it all for the future of mankind!

Geez....Louise....


----------



## RWS

Because it's gonna happen again. 

We'll have taken 1 step forward, and 1000 steps back. 

And it's going to be because of religion. Again.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking if your morals are relative, not anyone else's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My morals are my own. What are you trying to find out?
> 
> I don't have a religion that dictates what my morals are. I make them up as I think is right. And that is an evolutionary trait. Not a religious one.
> 
> So rather than trying to trap someone into your straw-man argument, why don't you say what you think about the morality of slavery?
> 
> Is slavery moral to you? And why or why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't be happier for you, but that wasn't even close to explaining the inconsistency of your previous comments.  Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given you my answer to the question you posed. And yet you stand by, and don't answer it when asked of you.
> 
> Typical religious dude...
> 
> You must have a point, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question. So now it is back on your lap!
> 
> It's your turn.
Click to expand...

You didn't even come close to answering it.  If the answer had been a pussy, you wouldn't have even gotten a sniff of it.

Not so, I am an uncommon religious dude.  But given that you have dismissed your incongruity, you are a typical atheist dude.

My point is that morals are not relative.  Yours are.


----------



## RWS

Really? Would you care to go back? You sound like a real religious zealot.

Here's my answer 3 pages back, that you chose to ignore...



> And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.
> 
> In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.
> 
> Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.
> 
> Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.
> 
> The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.



There's my answer to your straw-man question. I asked you for your answer. Are you afraid to answer the question you asked? 

Or did you just bite off more than you can chew?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Let me explain something really simple-wise...
> 
> If the God theory never existed, and all these religions didn't pop up around him/her/it, and destroy societies and knowledge throughout history, we would probably be travelling to other star systems by now.
> 
> We would be soooooo far advanced it not for the purge of religion, and burning of knowledge.... and having to start all over again every so often...
> 
> Really kicks my ass when i think about that... the religious purges... friggin jerks!
> 
> We would probably have figured everything out by now, if not for the constant religious reboots that our crazy beliefs have caused us to do.
> 
> So get your butts back to your private faiths, and stop trying to change the world, for something that has no more evidence than Santa Claus... You're ruining it all for the future of mankind!
> 
> Geez....Louise....


Man is hardwired to worship.  Therefore, he will worship something.  The only choice he has in the matter is what he will worship.

You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good.  It is not the fault of religion or God.  You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  You a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being.  You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like.  Your logic is flawed to say the least.  

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like...  their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Here is my proof that that is what that world would look like...

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Is slavery moral to you? And why or why not?



I did answer your question, dickweed.  You were too stupid to understand it.  Slavery is not moral.  Slavery has never been moral.  Slavery will never be moral.  That's what absolute morals look like.  None of your what's best for the population bullshit.  That's Marxists shit right there, comrade.


----------



## RWS

LOL! What does "God" think about your use of curses?

Is that approved? Actually it's probably suggested. So if you're ok with curses, I will have a field day with you going forward....

You go against your religion, in your morals about slavery...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Because it's gonna happen again.
> 
> We'll have taken 1 step forward, and 1000 steps back.
> 
> And it's going to be because of religion. Again.


Again I will say that your vague rosy notion of goodness is total bullshit.  You only see the bad and none of the good.  By any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.  Furthermore, your supposed utopia has already been tried and failed, but hey, they only murdered 200 million people in the 20th century, so maybe we should give that another try.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Really? Would you care to go back? You sound like a real religious zealot.
> 
> Here's my answer 3 pages back, that you chose to ignore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.
> 
> In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.
> 
> Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.
> 
> Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.
> 
> The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's my answer to your straw-man question. I asked you for your answer. Are you afraid to answer the question you asked?
> 
> Or did you just bite off more than you can chew?
Click to expand...

Stop flattering yourself.  Your answer sounds like something Karl Marx would have written.  Let me say this again because you seem to be too stupid to understand... your answer was a textbook example of what moral relativity is.  If there was a picture next to it in the dictionary, they would have your picture there.  Moral relativity is a cornerstone of communism where every single proclamation begins with Man with a capital "M."  Your bullshit deification of man and man's earthly happiness is exactly that... bullshit.  It was for good reason that Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> LOL! What does "God" think about your use of curses?
> 
> Is that approved? Actually it's probably suggested. So if you're ok with curses, I will have a field day with you going forward....
> 
> You go against your religion, in your morals about slavery...


He thinks it is Ok when I am dealing with dumbfucks who are too stupid to recognize that the utopia they are asking for has already been tried.


----------



## RWS

Wow, who put salt in your Cheerios this morning? 

Do you realize the bullshit you're saying? 

Do you realize that people like me think you're the #1 problem in this world? You just believe something and are willing to kill and die for it. Because you were born into that religion!!!

What if you were born into a different religion? Huh? Wow, what if you were born into Hinduism? Would you still argue Christian bullshit? Or would you be arguing Hindu bullshit? 

Your belief in your religion is rooted as far as your parents. It is not because it is true. It is because you were brainwashed from birth... you ignorant slut...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Wow, who put salt in your Cheerios this morning?
> 
> Do you realize the bullshit you're saying?
> 
> Do you realize that people like me think you're the #1 problem in this world? You just believe something and are willing to kill and die for it. Because you were born into that religion!!!
> 
> What if you were born into a different religion? Huh? Wow, what if you were born into Hinduism? Would you still argue Christian bullshit? Or would you be arguing Hindu bullshit?
> 
> Your belief in your religion is rooted as far as your parents. It is not because it is true. It is because you were brainwashed from birth... you ignorant slut...


Your militant atheist buddies last night.  I'm not playing let's have fun with the believer bullshit anymore.

Of course I realize that is what you believe.  Do you realize that I believe that dipshits who imagine a world without religion are idiots because that has already been tried and that reason and logic tell us that freedom and liberty cannot exist without virtue and morality and that religion is how that is taught because if we leave that up to the government we are royally fucked.

Can you show me where I have argued Christianity in all of this?


----------



## ding

*George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796*

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...”

The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.


----------



## ding

*George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796*

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

_The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38. _


----------



## ding

*Alexander Solzhenitsyn*

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”  “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”

“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577


----------



## ding

Communism is naturalized humanism.  Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs.  Vladimir Lenin


----------



## ding

Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. 
Dr. Ron Paul


----------



## ding

*The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion *and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, who put salt in your Cheerios this morning?
> 
> Do you realize the bullshit you're saying?
> 
> Do you realize that people like me think you're the #1 problem in this world? You just believe something and are willing to kill and die for it. Because you were born into that religion!!!
> 
> What if you were born into a different religion? Huh? Wow, what if you were born into Hinduism? Would you still argue Christian bullshit? Or would you be arguing Hindu bullshit?
> 
> Your belief in your religion is rooted as far as your parents. It is not because it is true. It is because you were brainwashed from birth... you ignorant slut...
> 
> 
> 
> Your militant atheist buddies last night.  I'm not playing let's have fun with the believer bullshit anymore.
> 
> Of course I realize that is what you believe.  Do you realize that I believe that dipshits who imagine a world without religion are idiots because that has already been tried and that reason and logic tell us that freedom and liberty cannot exist without virtue and morality and that religion is where that is taught because if we leave that up to the government we are royally fucked.
> 
> Can you show me where I have argued Christianity in all of this?
Click to expand...


Virtue and morality is taught by religion?!?

Wow, you're seriously fucked dude. See my previous post about birth-right religion.

You're a part of the problem, and not part of any solution. You are the type we need to study so we don't do that again in the future...

Your solution is destruction. Everyone has to be like you, and since that won't happen, you have to assimilate.

Realize that there are very more possibilities in the world, and the assumptions you roll with are wrong based on science and logic. We don't want more people like you on this planet. We want people who accept others as equals regardless of personal faith.

You certainly do not qualify based on the stuff you have said...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, who put salt in your Cheerios this morning?
> 
> Do you realize the bullshit you're saying?
> 
> Do you realize that people like me think you're the #1 problem in this world? You just believe something and are willing to kill and die for it. Because you were born into that religion!!!
> 
> What if you were born into a different religion? Huh? Wow, what if you were born into Hinduism? Would you still argue Christian bullshit? Or would you be arguing Hindu bullshit?
> 
> Your belief in your religion is rooted as far as your parents. It is not because it is true. It is because you were brainwashed from birth... you ignorant slut...
> 
> 
> 
> Your militant atheist buddies last night.  I'm not playing let's have fun with the believer bullshit anymore.
> 
> Of course I realize that is what you believe.  Do you realize that I believe that dipshits who imagine a world without religion are idiots because that has already been tried and that reason and logic tell us that freedom and liberty cannot exist without virtue and morality and that religion is where that is taught because if we leave that up to the government we are royally fucked.
> 
> Can you show me where I have argued Christianity in all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtue and morality is taught by religion?!?
> 
> Wow, you're seriously fucked dude. See my previous post about birth-right religion.
> 
> You're a part of the problem, and not part of any solution. You are the type we need to study so we don't do that again in the future...
> 
> Your solution is destruction. Everyone has to be like you, and since that won't happen, you have to assimilate.
> 
> Realize that there are very more possibilities in the world, and the assumptions you roll with are wrong based on science and logic. We don't want more people like you on this planet. We want people who accept others as equals regardless of personal faith.
> 
> You certainly do not qualify based on the stuff you have said...
Click to expand...

Hey... dumbfuck...  you are arguing against the Founding Fathers of freedom and liberty and agreeing with the founding fathers of communism.


----------



## RWS

Wow... you're a dumb motherfucker.

And you're drunk.

Which makes you a dumb, drunk, motherfucker... And you should not be posting stuff in that state, you fucking redneck.

Why don't you go try to find your parents somewhere in the backwoods?

And when you do, ask them what religion they are. And compare that to yours.

And see if the apple fell far from the tree.

Or if you're an original brilliant person that thinks outside of the box...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Wow... you're a dumb motherfucker.
> 
> And you're drunk.
> 
> Which makes you a dumb, drunk, motherfucker... And you should not be posting stuff in that state, you fucking redneck.
> 
> Why don't you go try to find your parents?


Nope.  Just tired of arguing with dumbfucks who argue against our Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and agree with the dumbfuck fathers of communism who don't know how to look at religion objectively and have some bullshit vague and rosy notion of goodness of what life would be like without religion even though history has proven that their bullshit view of that world is completely fucked up.  How's that?  You want more?  Keep coming back because I have all day.


----------



## RWS

Btw, I'm not atheist.

My nationality is half Jewish and half Muslim.

So there...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Btw, I'm not atheist.
> 
> My nationality is half Jewish and half Muslim.
> 
> So there...


Then maybe you should stop acting like one.  

Who said socialism was limited to atheists?  It has existed since the beginning of man.  It has always tried to subordinate religion even when it was done by religions against rival religions. It is how the cosmic battle between good and evil has manifested itself  here on earth.  You are on the wrong side of good.  But that's cool, you keep commenting on how religion is evil and I'll keep setting the record straight.  Fair enough?


----------



## RWS

Let's get your stuff straight redneck. Communism was actually a religion. It was a modern-day rendition of Calvinism and Puritanism. But they removed the concept of "God" and replaced it with "country" and "state". Socialism was the oppressive bullshit government that people with money and power put in place, and convinced the followers of Communism that it was necessary in order to get there. And of course, they would never let go of their control once they had it. It was just a farce to make money and gain power for those already in position. Just like every other religion.

BTW, I was kidding about my nationality being half Jewish and half Muslim. Just to see how dumb you are.

They are not nationalities dickhead. They are religions. See? You don't even know the difference between a nationality and a religion...

Why don't you leave this conversation to the adults?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Let's get your stuff straight redneck. Communism was actually a religion. It was a modern-day rendition of Calvinism and Puritanism. But they removed the concept of "God" and replaced it with "country" and "state". Socialism was the oppressive bullshit government that people with money and power put in place, and convinced the followers of Communism that it was necessary in order to get there. And of course, they would never let go of their control once they had it. It was just a farce to make money and gain power for those already in position. Just like every other religion.
> 
> BTW, I was kidding about my nationality being half Jewish and half Muslim. Just to see how dumb you are.
> 
> They are not nationalities dickhead. They are religions. See? You don't even know the difference between a nationality and a religion...
> 
> Why don't you leave this conversation to the adults?


I was responding to your comment that you were not an atheist, dumbass. 

So we are exactly where we were before.  You still have a dumbass rosy and vague notion of what life would be like without religion even though you don't have to imagine what that would be like because we already have had that.  You are still a dumbfuck for arguing against the founding fathers of freedom and religion.  You are still a dumbfuck for agreeing with the founding fathers of communism, and you are still a dumbfuck for dismissing the historical evidence of what happens when a people become irreligious. 

Let's recap...

*The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion *and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

*Alexander Solzhenitsyn*

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’” “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”

“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577

*George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796*

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...”

The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.

*George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796*

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

_The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.

Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. 
Dr. Ron Paul_


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Let's get your stuff straight redneck. Communism was actually a religion. It was a modern-day rendition of Calvinism and Puritanism. But they removed the concept of "God" and replaced it with "country" and "state". Socialism was the oppressive bullshit government that people with money and power put in place, and convinced the followers of Communism that it was necessary in order to get there. And of course, they would never let go of their control once they had it. It was just a farce to make money and gain power for those already in position. Just like every other religion.
> 
> BTW, I was kidding about my nationality being half Jewish and half Muslim. Just to see how dumb you are.
> 
> They are not nationalities dickhead. They are religions. See? You don't even know the difference between a nationality and a religion...
> 
> Why don't you leave this conversation to the adults?


You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get your stuff straight redneck. Communism was actually a religion. It was a modern-day rendition of Calvinism and Puritanism. But they removed the concept of "God" and replaced it with "country" and "state". Socialism was the oppressive bullshit government that people with money and power put in place, and convinced the followers of Communism that it was necessary in order to get there. And of course, they would never let go of their control once they had it. It was just a farce to make money and gain power for those already in position. Just like every other religion.
> 
> BTW, I was kidding about my nationality being half Jewish and half Muslim. Just to see how dumb you are.
> 
> They are not nationalities dickhead. They are religions. See? You don't even know the difference between a nationality and a religion...
> 
> Why don't you leave this conversation to the adults?
> 
> 
> 
> You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.
> 
> Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
Click to expand...


So your view is that non-believers are pretty bad people for humanity, huh? If you were in charge, what would you do with people like us?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get your stuff straight redneck. Communism was actually a religion. It was a modern-day rendition of Calvinism and Puritanism. But they removed the concept of "God" and replaced it with "country" and "state". Socialism was the oppressive bullshit government that people with money and power put in place, and convinced the followers of Communism that it was necessary in order to get there. And of course, they would never let go of their control once they had it. It was just a farce to make money and gain power for those already in position. Just like every other religion.
> 
> BTW, I was kidding about my nationality being half Jewish and half Muslim. Just to see how dumb you are.
> 
> They are not nationalities dickhead. They are religions. See? You don't even know the difference between a nationality and a religion...
> 
> Why don't you leave this conversation to the adults?
> 
> 
> 
> You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.
> 
> Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your view is that non-believers are pretty bad people for humanity, huh? If you were in charge, what would you do with people like us?
Click to expand...

No.  My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth.  You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like. .

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like.  Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> So your view is that non-believers are pretty bad people for humanity, huh? If you were in charge, what would you do with people like us?



i don't have to do a thing because you dumbasses will Darwinize yourselves out of existence eventually because nature rejects you.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your view is that non-believers are pretty bad people for humanity, huh? If you were in charge, what would you do with people like us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't have to do a thing because you dumbasses will Darwinize yourselves out of existence eventually because nature rejects you.
Click to expand...

Actually, science rejects every one of your theories. I'm sure you're well aware of that, aren't you?


----------



## RWS

Wow. 

Just wow.... 

You're using evolution to argue against the lack of religion? 

So while I go to sleep, and you continue posting crazy bs, and copy/pasting stuff you never wrote and plagiarizing yourself, I still suggest you find out what religion your parents are. And what religion their parents were. And their parents. And so on... 

I don't think you have ever thought of an original idea in your life. You just regurgitate bullshit mantras that you were taught from birth. 

You have never actually sat down, compared different religions and philosophies, and determined which were the most righteous, and which were full of shit. You just blindly repeat what you were taught, and will follow it like a lemming for the rest of your life. You use websites that are run by people just like you, and copy/paste their bullshit onto my screen, and claim it as yours. 

You are a total fucking brainwashed unoriginal dickhead. How's that for curses? Oh wait, you're an asshole too! 

I know you will never understand that, or anything else that goes against your belief. You say that I only focus on the negative things, and that is why I don't believe in "god". You are so wrong. I only use logic. 

But to give you something to do during the wee hours of the morning, what is it that makes you sure that there is a "god"? 

And please, do not copy/paste stuff again, or I will post the source...


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your view is that non-believers are pretty bad people for humanity, huh? If you were in charge, what would you do with people like us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to do a thing because you dumbasses will Darwinize yourselves out of existence eventually because nature rejects you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, science rejects every one of your theories. I'm sure you're well aware of that, aren't you?
Click to expand...

No.  I am not aware of that but I am aware that nature will reject you.  Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. You have none.  When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. That's not going to happen for you.  When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is what you can expect to happen.  How is this not nature accepting or rejecting us? Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? 

Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil. Since you do not know right from wrong, you will naturally fail.  

So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.  But since you reject these principles you are doomed to keep repeating your failures over and over again until you are finally darwinized out of existence.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Wow.
> 
> Just wow....
> 
> You're using evolution to argue against the lack of religion?
> 
> So while I go to sleep, and you continue posting crazy bs, and copy/pasting stuff you never wrote and plagiarizing yourself, I still suggest you find out what religion your parents are. And what religion their parents were. And their parents. And so on...
> 
> I don't think you have ever thought of an original idea in your life. You just regurgitate bullshit mantras that you were taught from birth.
> 
> You have never actually sat down, compared different religions and philosophies, and determined which were the most righteous, and which were full of shit. You just blindly repeat what you were taught, and will follow it like a lemming for the rest of your life. You use websites that are run by people just like you, and copy/paste their bullshit onto my screen, and claim it as yours.
> 
> You are a total fucking brainwashed unoriginal dickhead. How's that for curses? Oh wait, you're an asshole too!
> 
> I know you will never understand that, or anything else that goes against your belief. You say that I only focus on the negative things, and that is why I don't believe in "god". You are so wrong. I only use logic.
> 
> But to give you something to do during the wee hours of the morning, what is it that makes you sure that there is a "god"?
> 
> And please, do not copy/paste stuff again, or I will post the source...


Among other things, yes.  But let's not forget that my belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like. .

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

And that you are a dumbfuck for arguing against the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and that you are a dumbfuck for agreeing with the founding fathers of communism.  Don't lose sight of these things either.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your view is that non-believers are pretty bad people for humanity, huh? If you were in charge, what would you do with people like us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to do a thing because you dumbasses will Darwinize yourselves out of existence eventually because nature rejects you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, science rejects every one of your theories. I'm sure you're well aware of that, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I am not aware of that but I am aware that nature will reject you.  Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. You have none.  When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. That's not going to happen for you.  When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is what you can expect to happen.  How is this not nature accepting or rejecting us? Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong?
> 
> Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil. Since you do not know right from wrong, you will naturally fail.
> 
> So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.  But since you reject these principles you are doomed to keep repeating your failures over and over again until you are finally darwinized out of existence.
Click to expand...

So why do virtuous people get cancer and have other bad things happen to them? See how easy it is to show you that you fail again.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> that was the point for why his question had no merit ... you are simply enumerating majority rules whether good or evil where the latter under christianity has prevailed as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> history is replete with the evils of christianity as though their maturing was ever by their own accord, as exemplified by bing.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
Click to expand...

.











ding said:


> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.




finally a worthy comment, and how do you see it christian ....

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite. Everyone else except grump has been arguing for mob rules.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... christianity - as somehow different than the simple evil that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am arguing the exact opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> history is replete with the evils of christianity as though their maturing was ever by their own accord, as exemplified by bing.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> finally a worthy comment, and how do you see it christian ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without religion looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> no, you are not, you agreed as a christian with G that the times make a difference and did not dispute history provides the evidence christianity is a biased religion - of evil.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> history is replete with the evils of christianity as though their maturing was ever by their own accord, as exemplified by bing.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> finally a worthy comment, and how do you see it christian ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without religion looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.
> 
> Here is how I imagine a world without religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
Click to expand...

.







your response was not an answer to the question.




ding said:


> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good.



it is christianity that is blind ...




ding said:


> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.



that has not been its role in history as pointed out to you already, you are the one who claims Jesus was crucified for being a capitalist not for their religion as astonishing as that may be ...

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that is how you read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> history is replete with the evils of christianity as though their maturing was ever by their own accord, as exemplified by bing.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> finally a worthy comment, and how do you see it christian ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without religion looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.
> 
> Here is how I imagine a world without religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your response was not an answer to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is christianity that is blind ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that has not been its role in history as pointed out to you already, you are the one who claims Jesus was crucified for being a capitalist not for their religion as astonishing as that may be ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Do you want to abolish religion?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> history is replete with the evils of christianity as though their maturing was ever by their own accord, as exemplified by bing.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> finally a worthy comment, and how do you see it christian ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without religion looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.
> 
> Here is how I imagine a world without religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your response was not an answer to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is christianity that is blind ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that has not been its role in history as pointed out to you already, you are the one who claims Jesus was crucified for being a capitalist not for their religion as astonishing as that may be ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Do you want to abolish religion?









answer the question above, have you repentance for your crime christian ... the gale would like to know. without her you are doomed.


neither the religious nor atheist have an inside track for admission to the Everlasting only the Triumph of Good vs Evil will prevail. not chritianity, judaism nor islam; Noah's parable is the religion of the bible. the spoken religion of the Almighty.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> finally a worthy comment, and how do you see it christian ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without religion looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.
> 
> Here is how I imagine a world without religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your response was not an answer to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is christianity that is blind ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that has not been its role in history as pointed out to you already, you are the one who claims Jesus was crucified for being a capitalist not for their religion as astonishing as that may be ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question above, have you repentance for your crime christian ... the gale would like to know. without her you are doomed.
> 
> 
> neither the religious nor atheist have an inside track for admission to the Everlasting only the Triumph of Good vs Evil will prevail. not chritianity, judaism nor islam; Noah's parable is the religion of the bible. the spoken religion of the Almighty.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?


----------



## RWS

Hey guess what? 

I woke up, and nature didn't reject me! 

I'm still here! 

Hi five!!!!


----------



## RWS

And btw, what "good" has your religion done in the name of God, that should make people overlook the "horrible bad"?

Let's weigh that. Millions of people murdered, many more millions tortured, and many, many, more millions forced to "believe or die". Homicide, Genocide, and every type of "cide" you can think of, was committed by the big three religions. 

That's a great thing to worship and follow, and kill for!!! jk

What is it that makes you special and worth discussing further?


----------



## Czernobog

RWS said:


> And btw, what "good" has your religion done in the name of God, that should make people overlook the "horrible bad"?
> 
> Let's weigh that. Millions of people murdered, many more millions tortured, and many, many, more millions forced to "believe or die". Homicide, Genocide, and every type of "cide" you can think of, was committed by the big three religions.
> 
> That's a great thing to worship and follow, and kill for!!! jk
> 
> What is it that makes you special and worth discussing further?


I tried this.  Apparently Christianity is responsible for the entirety of all of Western Civilisation.  But, don't expect to get any specifics on that, the best dingdong can do is cut and paste part of a Wikipedia page for that.  Apparently, though he has been told that Christianity is responsible for Western civilisation (many of us were taught that general concept in Freshman World History, in high school), he is incapable of a little critical thinking, and research, so he has no actual clue what that means in detail.  So, he is, in turn, incapable of separating the *positive* influences of that period, from the negative ones.

Because, you know, the Church's influence was significant, just not necessarily positive.  It was a time when nearly everyone believed in God, and the Church ran all the governments:  It was called the Dark Ages for a reason.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> *George Washington
> Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796*
> 
> “…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
> 
> _The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38. _


Since we're quoting a Founding Father, why don't we quote a couple more:

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Joseph Priestly:  "Christianity [is the] most perverted system that ever shone on man,"

Ben Franklin: "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

Not *all* of the Founding Fathers were quite as enamoured with your crucified god as you would like to have people believe.  So many, in fact, were not so, that they formed the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment to insure that religion would never get a theocratic foothold in this nation.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> finally a worthy comment, and how do you see it christian ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without religion looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.
> 
> Here is how I imagine a world without religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your response was not an answer to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is christianity that is blind ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that has not been its role in history as pointed out to you already, you are the one who claims Jesus was crucified for being a capitalist not for their religion as astonishing as that may be ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question above, have you repentance for your crime christian ... the gale would like to know. without her you are doomed.
> 
> 
> neither the religious nor atheist have an inside track for admission to the Everlasting only the Triumph of Good vs Evil will prevail. not chritianity, judaism nor islam; Noah's parable is the religion of the bible. the spoken religion of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?





those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.


an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.

.


----------



## RWS

How ding ever got over the realization that Santa Claus wasn't real, is something that blows my mind. But from there, instead of learning to be skeptical and maybe doing some research first, he went to promoting another impossible omnipotent figure that looks and sounds just like Santa (but thinner).


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *George Washington
> Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796*
> 
> “…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
> 
> _The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38. _
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're quoting a Founding Father, why don't we quote a couple more:
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Joseph Priestly:  "Christianity [is the] most perverted system that ever shone on man,"
> 
> Ben Franklin: "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
> 
> Not *all* of the Founding Fathers were quite as enamoured with your crucified god as you would like to have people believe.  So many, in fact, were not so, that they formed the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment to insure that religion would never get a theocratic foothold in this nation.
Click to expand...

Our Fore Fathers believed that liberty and freedom rested on virtue and morality and that virtue and morality would not be maintained with out religion.  Atheistic governments of the 20th century have proven this to be true.

*"[V]irtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government."
George Washington

"Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? "
George Washington

"[T]here is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists . . . an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." 
George Washington

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"The aggregate happiness of the society, which is best promoted by the practice of a virtuous policy, is, or ought to be, the end of all government . . . ."
George Washington

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

"Laws without morals are in vain." 
Benjamin Franklin (Motto of the University of Pennsylvania)

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." 
Benjamin Franklin

"A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society."
Thomas Jefferson

"No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government."
Thomas Jefferson

"It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. . . . degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution."
Thomas Jefferson

"[In a republic, according to Montesquieu in Spirit of the Laws, IV,ch.5,] 'virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtue; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself... Now a government is like everything else: to preserve it we must love it . . . Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education; but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example.'" 
Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

"When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community."
Montesquieu (written by Thomas Jefferson in his Common Place Book).

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson 

"Liberty . . . is the great parent of science and of virtue; and . . . a nation will be great in both always in proportion as it is free."
Thomas Jefferson 

"The order of nature [is] that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue."
Thomas Jefferson 

"Without virtue, happiness cannot be."
Thomas Jefferson

"The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence."
Alexander Hamilton

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."
James Madison

"The aim of every political Constitution, is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
James Madison

". . . Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger." 
Patrick Henry 

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Patrick Henry

"The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net."
John Adams

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

"Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul."
John Adams

"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics."
John Adams

"t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
John Adams

"The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy."
John Adams

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." 
John Adams

"Honor is truly sacred, but holds a lower rank in the scale of moral excellence than virtue. Indeed the former is part of the latter, and consequently has not equal pretensions to support a frame of government productive of human happiness."
John Adams

"Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the "latent spark"... If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?"
John Adams

"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."
Fisher Ames

"It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people."
Richard Henry Lee 

"Whenever we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary." 
Thomas Paine

"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen onto any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man."
Samuel Adams

"The diminution of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals."
Samuel Adams

"[M]en will be free no longer then while they remain virtuous."
Samuel Adams

"If virtue & knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslav'd. This will be their great security." 
Samuel Adams

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."
Samuel Adams

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."
Samuel Adams

"No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous." 
Samuel Johnson

"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
George Mason

"[A] free government . . . cannot be supported without Virtue."
Samuel Williams

"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character. It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country."
Noah Webster

"...if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded."
Noah Webster

"Let a man's zeal, profession, or even principles as to political measures be what they will, if he is without personal integrity and private virtue, as a man he is not to be trusted."
John Witherspoon

"... the manners of the people in general are of the utmost moment to the stability of any civil society. When the body of a people are altogether corrupt in their manners, the government is ripe for dissolution."
John Witherspoon

"So true is this, that civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue."
John Witherspoon

"... but a republic once equally poised, must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty, and by some tumultuous revolution, either return to its first principles, or assume a more unhappy form."
John Witherspoon

"A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue." 
Jean Jacques Rousseau

"Machiavel, discoursing on these matters, finds virtue to be so essentially necessary to the establishment and preservation of liberty, that he thinks it impossible for a corrupted people to set up a good government, or for a tyranny to be introduced if they be virtuous; and makes this conclusion, 'That where the matter (that is, the body of the people) is not corrupted, tumults and disorders do not hurt; and where it is corrupted, good laws do no good:' which being confirmed by reason and experience, I think no wise man has ever contradicted him."
Algernon Sidney

"[L]iberty cannot be preserved, if the manners of the people are corrupted . . ."
Algernon Sidney

"[A]ll popular and well-mixed governments [republics] . . . are ever established by wise and good men, and can never be upheld otherwise than by virtue: The worst men always conspiring against them, they must fall, if the best have not power to preserve them. . . . [and] unless they be preserved in a great measure free from vices . . . ." 
Algernon Sidney

"Fruits are always of the same nature with the seeds and roots from which they come, and trees are known by the fruits they bear: as a man begets a man, and a beast a beast, that society of men which constitutes a government upon the foundation of justice, virtue, and the common good, will always have men to promote those ends; and that which intends the advancement of one man's desire and vanity, will abound in those that will foment them."
Algernon Sidney

"f vice and corruption prevail, liberty cannot subsist; but if virtue have the advantage, arbitrary power cannot be established."
Algernon Sidney

"If the public safety be provided, liberty and propriety secured, justice administered, virtue encouraged, vice suppressed, and the true interest of the nation advanced, the ends of government are accomplished . . ."
Algernon Sidney

"[L]iberty without virtue would be no blessing to us."
Benjamin Rush

"Without virtue there can be no liberty."
Benjamin Rush

"The only foundation for... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."
Benjamin Rush

"No free government can stand without virtue in the people, and a lofty spirit of partiotism." 
Andrew Jackson

"Lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits." 
Daniel Webster 

"f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us, that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity."
Daniel Webster

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."
Horace Greely

"What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint."
Edmund Burke

"Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist."
Edmund Burke

"Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them in great measure the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex and smooth, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and color to our lives. According to their quality, they aid morals, they support them, or they totally destroy them." 
Edmund Burke 

"It is better to cherish virtue and humanity, by leaving much to free will, even with some loss of the object , than to attempt to make men mere machines and instruments of political benevolence. The world on the whole will gain by a liberty, without which virtue cannot exist."
Edmund Burke

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Edmund Burke 

"Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist."
Edmund Burke 

"[T]he very best forms of government are vain without public virtue . . . ."
William A. Cocke

"No polity can be devised which shall perpetuate freedom among a people that are dead to honor and integrity. Liberty and virtue are twin sisters, and the best fabric in the world . . . ."
James H. Thornwell

"[P]erfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he . . . introduces confusion and disorder into society . . . [thus] where licentiousness begins, liberty ends."
Samuel West

"When was public virtue to be found when private was not?"
William Cowper

"The laws by which the Divine Ruler of the universe has decreed an indissoluble connection between public happiness and private virtue, whatever apparent exceptions may delude our short-sighted judgments, never fail to vindicate their supremacy and immutability."
William Cabell Rives

"Unless virtue guide us our choice must be wrong."
William Penn

"If men be good, government cannot be bad."
William Penn

"Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." 
Joseph Story

"The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous."
Frederick Douglas

"[R]eligion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."
Northwest Ordinance of 1787

"I consider the domestic virtue of the Americans as the principle source of all their other qualities. It acts as a promoter of industry, as a stimulus to enterprise and as the most powerful restraint of public vice. . . . No government could be established on the same principle as that of the United States with a different code of morals."
Francis Grund

"The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but it can only suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a single letter in the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government."
Francis Grund

"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster." 
Douglas MacArthur 

"[Liberty] considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom."
Alexis de Tocqueville

"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her comodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies; and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast commerce, and it was not there. Not until I visited the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." 
An old adage attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville

"Somehow strangely the vice of men gets well represented and protected but their virtue has none to plead its cause -- nor any charter of immunities and rights."
Henry David Thoreau

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society."
Theodore Roosevelt

"We have never stopped sin by passing laws; and in the same way, we are not going to take a great moral ideal and achieve it merely by law." 
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"No government at any level, or at any price, can afford, on the crime side, the police necessary to assure our safety unless the overwhelming majority of us are guided by an inner, personal code of morality. And you will not get that inner, personal code of morality unless children are brought up in a family -- a family that gives them the affection they seek, that makes them feel they belong, that guides them to the future, and that will build continuity in future generations. . . . the greatest inequality today is not inequality of wealth or income. It is the inequality between the child brought up in a loving, supportive family and one who has been denied that birthright."
Lady Margaret Thatcher

"A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state." 
Ronald Reagan

"Today it would be progress if everyone would stop talking about values. Instead, let us talk, as the Founders did, about virtues." 
George Will

"The ultimate success of this government and the stability of its institutions, its progress in all that can make a nation honored, depend upon its adherence to the principles of truth and righteousness." 
John Lord

"Righteousness exalteth a nation." 
Proverbs 14:34*


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *George Washington
> Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796*
> 
> “…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
> 
> _The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38. _
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're quoting a Founding Father, why don't we quote a couple more:
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Joseph Priestly:  "Christianity [is the] most perverted system that ever shone on man,"
> 
> Ben Franklin: "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
> 
> Not *all* of the Founding Fathers were quite as enamoured with your crucified god as you would like to have people believe.  So many, in fact, were not so, that they formed the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment to insure that religion would never get a theocratic foothold in this nation.
Click to expand...

But if that is not enough proof maybe you will accept witness testimony:

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

*Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America*
_Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent..._

_I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims._


----------



## ding

The New England Primer was the second best-selling book in the American colonies. The Bible was number one. Five million copies existed in America. There there were only four million people in America in 1776.   Every school child was taught morality and virtue as Thomas Jefferson said they should be.  

The New England Primer, 1777 edition


----------



## Czernobog

RWS said:


> How ding ever got over the realization that Santa Claus wasn't real, is something that blows my mind. But from there, instead of learning to be skeptical and maybe doing some research first, he went to promoting another impossible omnipotent figure that looks and sounds just like Santa (but thinner).


 
Well...in his defence, I promoted that same fairy tale until seminary.  The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality.  it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people.  It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.  Unfortunately, for most it is much too late by then.  Indoctrination is far too set in.  Fortunately, for me, when I set out to translate, and understand the Bible, it forced me to examine what the Bible said, in detail, and how it compared to itself, other religious writings, and science.  Unfortunately, for religion, it was found wanting.  From that shocking reality, it didn't take long for the whole house of cards to fall down.

After I left Seminary, and Christianity behind, I still found myself with an emotional need to believe in "something more".  That desire is deeply ingrained into usas we are raised.  Since I was against Christianity, I decided like many young people that this meant I was to be *anti-*Christian, and what is more "anti-Christian" than Satanism right?  So, I went out, and got my Satanic Bible (I actually still have it crammed on a shelf somewhere in my library; I haven't so much as cracked the cover in decades), found a satanic church, and began immediately prostrating myself to our Glorious Dark Lord.  It didn't take long at all, for me to come to a somewhat unsettling realisation:  I was still allowing myself to be stuck inside the same box that I grew up in.  In order to accept the existence of Satan, one must *first* accept that the Christian theology is accurate.  Well, here's a sobering reality for you Satanists: if the Christian theology is accurate, then this story has already been written, and *Your.  Guy.  LOST!!!*  Being a Satanist, and betting that this will, somehow, enrich your life is rather like betting that the Cleveland Indians are going to beat the Cubs this year.  We already know how that game turned out, but, hey!  If you want to *intentionally* make a bet on the losing team, feel free.

So, Christianity was irrational.  Satanism is just plain stupid.  It was time to climb out of my box.  I saw no purpose to Judaism; that's as much a cultural/racial thing, as it is a religious thing.  Besides, Judaism is just a forerunner of Christianity, and I had already decided that version of a "higher power"was irrational.  I studied Islam  for a bit.  It didn't take long at all to discover that Islam is just another flavour of the same theology that gave us Judaism, and Christianity.  So, since the Christian concept of divinity didn't do it for me, which automatically discounted the Jewish concept of divinity, guess where that left Islam.  From there I moved on to Buddhism,Hinduism, even Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, and Rastafarianism.  All of those contained within their beliefs their own rational dissonances.

I then discovered, Neo-Paganism.  With paganism, I found a religion that seemed to follow the natural laws of physics, and the universe.  Over the last decade, or so, I have come to understand that the divinity aspect of paganism is more metaphorical, and allegorical than factual.  Hence, I am today an atheist who worships nature.

Theists all seem to think that the only reason one becomes an atheist because some "event" happened in their life, they "got mad at God", and their rejection of religion is some emotional rebellion, like a child throwing a temper tantrum.  They can't conceive of the atheist who has rejected religion as a matter of reason, and logic.


----------



## sealybobo

Czernobog said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ding ever got over the realization that Santa Claus wasn't real, is something that blows my mind. But from there, instead of learning to be skeptical and maybe doing some research first, he went to promoting another impossible omnipotent figure that looks and sounds just like Santa (but thinner).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well...in his defence, I promoted that same fairy tale until seminary.  The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality.  it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people.  It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.  Unfortunately, for most it is much too late by then.  Indoctrination is far too set in.  Fortunately, for me, when I set out to translate, and understand the Bible, it forced me to what the Bible said, in detail, and how it compared to itself, other religious writings, and science.  Unfortunately, for religion, it was found wanting.  From that shocking reality, it didn't take long for the whole house of cards to fall down.
> 
> After I left Seminary, and Christianity behind, I still found myself with an emotional need to believe in "something more".  That desire is deeply ingrained into usas we are raised.  Since I was against Christianity, I decided like many young people that this meant I was to be *anti-*Christian, and what is more "anti-Christian" than Satanism right?  So, I went out, and got my Satanic Bible (I actually still have it crammed on a shelf somewhere in my library; I haven't so much as cracked the cover in decades), found a satanic church, and began immediately prostrating myself to our Glorious Dark Lord.  It didn't take long at all, for me to come to a somewhat unsettling realisation:  I was still allowing myself to be stuck inside the same box that I grew up in.  In order to accept the existence of Satan, one must *first* accept that the Christian theology is accurate.  Well, here's a sobering reality for you Satanists: if the Christian theology is accurate, then this story has already been written, and *Your.  Guy.  LOST!!!*  Being a Satanist, and betting that this will, somehow, enrich your life is rather like betting that the Cleveland Indians are going to beat the Cubs this year.  We already know how that game turned out, but, hey!  If you want to *intentionally* make a bet on the losing team, feel free.
> 
> So, Christianity was irrational.  Satanism is just plain stupid.  It was time to climb out of my box.  I saw no purpose to Judaism; that's as much a cultural/racial thing, as it is a religious thing.  Besides, Judaism is just a forerunner of Christianity, and I had already decided that version of a "higher power"was irrational.  I studied Islam  for a bit.  It didn't take long at all to discover that Islam is just another flavour of the same theology that gave us Judaism, and Christianity.  So, since the Christian concept of divinity didn't do it for me, which automatically discounted the Jewish concept of divinity, guess where that left Islam.  From there I moved on to Buddhism,Hindism, even Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, and Rastafarianism.  All of those contained within their beliefs their own rational dissonances.
> 
> I then discovered, Neo-Paganism.  With paganism, I found a religion that seemed to follow the natural laws of physics, and the universe.  Over the last decade, or so, I have come to understand that the divinity aspect of paganism is more metaphorical, and allegorical than factual.  Hence, I am today an atheist who worships nature.
> 
> theists all seem to think that the only reason one becomes an atheist because some "event" happened in their life, and their rejection of religion is some emotional rebellion, like a child throwing a temper tantrum.  They can't conceive of the atheist who has rejected religion as a matter of reason, and logic.
Click to expand...


RWNJ's already accuse schools of being too "liberal".  I'm sure a long time ago parents told schools to not tell their kids that god might be made up.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> How ding ever got over the realization that Santa Claus wasn't real, is something that blows my mind. But from there, instead of learning to be skeptical and maybe doing some research first, he went to promoting another impossible omnipotent figure that looks and sounds just like Santa (but thinner).


I was six years old when it hit me and I asked her if she was Santa.  She didn't lie to me.  I


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ding ever got over the realization that Santa Claus wasn't real, is something that blows my mind. But from there, instead of learning to be skeptical and maybe doing some research first, he went to promoting another impossible omnipotent figure that looks and sounds just like Santa (but thinner).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well...in his defence, I promoted that same fairy tale until seminary.  The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality.  it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people.  It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.  Unfortunately, for most it is much too late by then.  Indoctrination is far too set in.  Fortunately, for me, when I set out to translate, and understand the Bible, it forced me to examine what the Bible said, in detail, and how it compared to itself, other religious writings, and science.  Unfortunately, for religion, it was found wanting.  From that shocking reality, it didn't take long for the whole house of cards to fall down.
> 
> After I left Seminary, and Christianity behind, I still found myself with an emotional need to believe in "something more".  That desire is deeply ingrained into usas we are raised.  Since I was against Christianity, I decided like many young people that this meant I was to be *anti-*Christian, and what is more "anti-Christian" than Satanism right?  So, I went out, and got my Satanic Bible (I actually still have it crammed on a shelf somewhere in my library; I haven't so much as cracked the cover in decades), found a satanic church, and began immediately prostrating myself to our Glorious Dark Lord.  It didn't take long at all, for me to come to a somewhat unsettling realisation:  I was still allowing myself to be stuck inside the same box that I grew up in.  In order to accept the existence of Satan, one must *first* accept that the Christian theology is accurate.  Well, here's a sobering reality for you Satanists: if the Christian theology is accurate, then this story has already been written, and *Your.  Guy.  LOST!!!*  Being a Satanist, and betting that this will, somehow, enrich your life is rather like betting that the Cleveland Indians are going to beat the Cubs this year.  We already know how that game turned out, but, hey!  If you want to *intentionally* make a bet on the losing team, feel free.
> 
> So, Christianity was irrational.  Satanism is just plain stupid.  It was time to climb out of my box.  I saw no purpose to Judaism; that's as much a cultural/racial thing, as it is a religious thing.  Besides, Judaism is just a forerunner of Christianity, and I had already decided that version of a "higher power"was irrational.  I studied Islam  for a bit.  It didn't take long at all to discover that Islam is just another flavour of the same theology that gave us Judaism, and Christianity.  So, since the Christian concept of divinity didn't do it for me, which automatically discounted the Jewish concept of divinity, guess where that left Islam.  From there I moved on to Buddhism,Hinduism, even Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, and Rastafarianism.  All of those contained within their beliefs their own rational dissonances.
> 
> I then discovered, Neo-Paganism.  With paganism, I found a religion that seemed to follow the natural laws of physics, and the universe.  Over the last decade, or so, I have come to understand that the divinity aspect of paganism is more metaphorical, and allegorical than factual.  Hence, I am today an atheist who worships nature.
> 
> Theists all seem to think that the only reason one becomes an atheist because some "event" happened in their life, they "got mad at God", and their rejection of religion is some emotional rebellion, like a child throwing a temper tantrum.  They can't conceive of the atheist who has rejected religion as a matter of reason, and logic.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh... an apostate.  That explains much.  You think you are too smart for God.  So now you spend your time trolling religious forums to mock the beliefs of others.  You have filled your God void with a new religion.  The fact that you had a God void that needed filling should have been proof enough.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality. it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people. It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.


So how do you explain the fact that the moment I left for university I stopped going to mass and it wasn't until almost 20 years later I started studying religions on my own and determined that Judea/Christianity was the only religion where God was seeking man.  While there are many similarities between all religions, the rest are men seeking God.  

Since you claim to have attended Seminary school, how are we called to worship God in the Bible?


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without religion looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.
> 
> Here is how I imagine a world without religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your response was not an answer to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it like you are like almost every atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is christianity that is blind ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you don't see any good done by men because of religion means that you are not objective about this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that has not been its role in history as pointed out to you already, you are the one who claims Jesus was crucified for being a capitalist not for their religion as astonishing as that may be ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question above, have you repentance for your crime christian ... the gale would like to know. without her you are doomed.
> 
> 
> neither the religious nor atheist have an inside track for admission to the Everlasting only the Triumph of Good vs Evil will prevail. not chritianity, judaism nor islam; Noah's parable is the religion of the bible. the spoken religion of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.
> 
> 
> an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I don't worship a book.  But would you abolish Christianity if you could?


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality. it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people. It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the fact that the moment I left for university I stopped going to mass and it wasn't until almost 20 years later I started studying religions on my own and determined that Judea/Christianity was the only religion where God was seeking man.  While there are many similarities between all religions, the rest are men seeking God.
> 
> Since you claim to have attended Seminary school, how are we called to worship God in the Bible?
Click to expand...

I can't explain why you would *choose* to return to ignorance.  Only you can explain that.

You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false.  You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent.  Could I answer your simplistic query?  Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship?  Sure.  Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah?  Not a problem.  But, why?  That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination.  When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality. it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people. It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the fact that the moment I left for university I stopped going to mass and it wasn't until almost 20 years later I started studying religions on my own and determined that Judea/Christianity was the only religion where God was seeking man.  While there are many similarities between all religions, the rest are men seeking God.
> 
> Since you claim to have attended Seminary school, how are we called to worship God in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't explain why you would *choose* to return to ignorance.  Only you can explain that.
> 
> You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false.  You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent.  Could I answer your simplistic query?  Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship?  Sure.  Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah?  Not a problem.  But, why?  That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination.  When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.
Click to expand...

lol, none of those answers come close.  You don't have to guess, He told us.  We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.

Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.  

I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith.  I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism.  In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking.  What you really practice is critical theory.  They are not the same thing. 

The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality. it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people. It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the fact that the moment I left for university I stopped going to mass and it wasn't until almost 20 years later I started studying religions on my own and determined that Judea/Christianity was the only religion where God was seeking man.  While there are many similarities between all religions, the rest are men seeking God.
> 
> Since you claim to have attended Seminary school, how are we called to worship God in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't explain why you would *choose* to return to ignorance.  Only you can explain that.
> 
> You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false.  You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent.  Could I answer your simplistic query?  Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship?  Sure.  Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah?  Not a problem.  But, why?  That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination.  When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, none of those answers come close.  You don't have to guess, He told us.  We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.
> 
> Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.
> 
> I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith.  I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism.  In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking.  What you really practice is critical theory.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't.  According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.  So what?  In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving.  And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do.  It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.

Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists.  Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that.  So, in order to accept the existence of God, I must first suspend reason, and just *believe* in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.

Your argument fails at its foundation.

The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your response was not an answer to the question.
> 
> 
> it is christianity that is blind ...
> 
> 
> that has not been its role in history as pointed out to you already, you are the one who claims Jesus was crucified for being a capitalist not for their religion as astonishing as that may be ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question above, have you repentance for your crime christian ... the gale would like to know. without her you are doomed.
> 
> 
> neither the religious nor atheist have an inside track for admission to the Everlasting only the Triumph of Good vs Evil will prevail. not chritianity, judaism nor islam; Noah's parable is the religion of the bible. the spoken religion of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.
> 
> 
> an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't worship a book.  But would you abolish Christianity if you could?
Click to expand...

.






I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to abolish religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question above, have you repentance for your crime christian ... the gale would like to know. without her you are doomed.
> 
> 
> neither the religious nor atheist have an inside track for admission to the Everlasting only the Triumph of Good vs Evil will prevail. not chritianity, judaism nor islam; Noah's parable is the religion of the bible. the spoken religion of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.
> 
> 
> an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't worship a book.  But would you abolish Christianity if you could?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What crime have I committed again?  Do you even know what repent means?  And no, you didn't answer the question.  I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned.  Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil.  Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.  If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality. it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people. It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the fact that the moment I left for university I stopped going to mass and it wasn't until almost 20 years later I started studying religions on my own and determined that Judea/Christianity was the only religion where God was seeking man.  While there are many similarities between all religions, the rest are men seeking God.
> 
> Since you claim to have attended Seminary school, how are we called to worship God in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't explain why you would *choose* to return to ignorance.  Only you can explain that.
> 
> You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false.  You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent.  Could I answer your simplistic query?  Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship?  Sure.  Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah?  Not a problem.  But, why?  That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination.  When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, none of those answers come close.  You don't have to guess, He told us.  We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.
> 
> Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.
> 
> I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith.  I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism.  In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking.  What you really practice is critical theory.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they aren't.  According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.  So what?  In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving.  And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do.  It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.
> 
> Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists.  Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that.  So, in order to accept the existence of God, I must first suspend reason, and just *believe* in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.
> 
> Your argument fails at its foundation.
> 
> The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.
Click to expand...

What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts.  Why are you guessing?  Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world?  Don't you know that He told us how to worship God?  Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answer the question above, have you repentance for your crime christian ... the gale would like to know. without her you are doomed.
> 
> 
> neither the religious nor atheist have an inside track for admission to the Everlasting only the Triumph of Good vs Evil will prevail. not chritianity, judaism nor islam; Noah's parable is the religion of the bible. the spoken religion of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.
> 
> 
> an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't worship a book.  But would you abolish Christianity if you could?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What crime have I committed again?  Do you even know what repent means?  And no, you didn't answer the question.  I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned.  Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil.  Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.  If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.




  -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?


christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.

_*
And no, you didn't answer the question.*_

certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.
> 
> 
> an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't worship a book.  But would you abolish Christianity if you could?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What crime have I committed again?  Do you even know what repent means?  And no, you didn't answer the question.  I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned.  Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil.  Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.  If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?
> 
> 
> christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.
> 
> _*
> And no, you didn't answer the question.*_
> 
> certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?

metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.



That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again?  Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality. it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people. It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the fact that the moment I left for university I stopped going to mass and it wasn't until almost 20 years later I started studying religions on my own and determined that Judea/Christianity was the only religion where God was seeking man.  While there are many similarities between all religions, the rest are men seeking God.
> 
> Since you claim to have attended Seminary school, how are we called to worship God in the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't explain why you would *choose* to return to ignorance.  Only you can explain that.
> 
> You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false.  You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent.  Could I answer your simplistic query?  Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship?  Sure.  Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah?  Not a problem.  But, why?  That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination.  When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, none of those answers come close.  You don't have to guess, He told us.  We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.
> 
> Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.
> 
> I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith.  I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism.  In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking.  What you really practice is critical theory.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they aren't.  According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.  So what?  In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving.  And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do.  It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.
> 
> Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists.  Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that.  So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just *believe* in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.
> 
> Your argument fails at its foundation.
> 
> The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts.  Why are you guessing?  Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world?  Don't you know that He told us how to worship God?  Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?
Click to expand...


So, my answer was incorrect?  Really?  Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says.  I'm sure you have it memorised.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again?  Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?
Click to expand...

Really?  Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was *not* the son of God to whom he was referring.  In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he *was* referring.

I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring  conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).

But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the fact that the moment I left for university I stopped going to mass and it wasn't until almost 20 years later I started studying religions on my own and determined that Judea/Christianity was the only religion where God was seeking man.  While there are many similarities between all religions, the rest are men seeking God.
> 
> Since you claim to have attended Seminary school, how are we called to worship God in the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> I can't explain why you would *choose* to return to ignorance.  Only you can explain that.
> 
> You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false.  You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent.  Could I answer your simplistic query?  Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship?  Sure.  Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah?  Not a problem.  But, why?  That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination.  When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, none of those answers come close.  You don't have to guess, He told us.  We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.
> 
> Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.
> 
> I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith.  I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism.  In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking.  What you really practice is critical theory.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they aren't.  According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.  So what?  In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving.  And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do.  It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.
> 
> Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists.  Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that.  So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just *believe* in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.
> 
> Your argument fails at its foundation.
> 
> The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts.  Why are you guessing?  Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world?  Don't you know that He told us how to worship God?  Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, my answer was incorrect?  Really?  Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says.  I'm sure you have it memorised.
Click to expand...


Sure...

John 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


*John 18*
37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.  Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't explain why you would *choose* to return to ignorance.  Only you can explain that.
> 
> You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false.  You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent.  Could I answer your simplistic query?  Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship?  Sure.  Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah?  Not a problem.  But, why?  That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination.  When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> lol, none of those answers come close.  You don't have to guess, He told us.  We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.
> 
> Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.
> 
> I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith.  I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism.  In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking.  What you really practice is critical theory.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they aren't.  According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.  So what?  In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving.  And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do.  It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.
> 
> Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists.  Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that.  So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just *believe* in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.
> 
> Your argument fails at its foundation.
> 
> The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts.  Why are you guessing?  Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world?  Don't you know that He told us how to worship God?  Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, my answer was incorrect?  Really?  Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says.  I'm sure you have it memorised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...
> 
> John 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
> 
> 37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.  Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
Click to expand...

So...he *lied* when he said he came to save the world?  he only came to "tell the truth"? Huh.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again?  Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was *not* the son of God to whom he was referring.  In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he *was* referring.
> 
> I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring  conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).
> 
> But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.
Click to expand...

Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?

Are you sure you went to Seminary School?


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, none of those answers come close.  You don't have to guess, He told us.  We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.
> 
> Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.
> 
> I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith.  I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism.  In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking.  What you really practice is critical theory.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't.  According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.  So what?  In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving.  And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do.  It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.
> 
> Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists.  Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that.  So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just *believe* in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.
> 
> Your argument fails at its foundation.
> 
> The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts.  Why are you guessing?  Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world?  Don't you know that He told us how to worship God?  Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, my answer was incorrect?  Really?  Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says.  I'm sure you have it memorised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...
> 
> John 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
> 
> 37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.  Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...he *lied* when he said he came to save the world?  he only came to "tell the truth"? Huh.
Click to expand...


It is no wonder you flunked out of Seminary School.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again?  Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was *not* the son of God to whom he was referring.  In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he *was* referring.
> 
> I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring  conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).
> 
> But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?
Click to expand...

We haven't settled that.  He lied when he said he came to save the world? {John 3:17}?  How about when he said he came to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34)  Was he lying then?  Was he also lying when he said he came to "bring fire"? (Luke 12:459)

I mean, if the *only correct* answer to your question is found in John 18:37, then all of those other passages must have been him lying?


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't.  According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.  So what?  In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving.  And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do.  It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.
> 
> Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists.  Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that.  So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just *believe* in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.
> 
> Your argument fails at its foundation.
> 
> The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.
> 
> 
> 
> What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts.  Why are you guessing?  Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world?  Don't you know that He told us how to worship God?  Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, my answer was incorrect?  Really?  Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says.  I'm sure you have it memorised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...
> 
> John 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
> 
> 37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.  Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...he *lied* when he said he came to save the world?  he only came to "tell the truth"? Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is no wonder you flunked out of Seminary School.
Click to expand...

Actually what is clear is that you never thought about a sigle passage in the Bible, and are content to let others do your thinking for you.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again?  Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was *not* the son of God to whom he was referring.  In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he *was* referring.
> 
> I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring  conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).
> 
> But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We haven't settled that.  He lied when he said he came to save the world? {John 3:17}?  How about when he said he came to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34)  Was he lying then?  Was he also lying when he said he came to "bring fire"? (Luke 12:459)
> 
> I mean, if the *only correct* answer to your question is found in John 18:37, then all of those other passages must have been him lying?
Click to expand...

Like I said before, it is no wonder you flunked out of seminary school if you can't understand the distinction.  Your problem is that you only look for what something can't be instead of what it is.  This is no different than when you claimed that religious influence has only been bad.  Or did you forget when you said that there was no baby in the bathwater that there was only dirty water?  Your lack of objectivity indicts you.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again?  Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was *not* the son of God to whom he was referring.  In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he *was* referring.
> 
> I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring  conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).
> 
> But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We haven't settled that.  He lied when he said he came to save the world? {John 3:17}?  How about when he said he came to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34)  Was he lying then?  Was he also lying when he said he came to "bring fire"? (Luke 12:459)
> 
> I mean, if the *only correct* answer to your question is found in John 18:37, then all of those other passages must have been him lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said before, it is no wonder you flunked out of seminary school if you can't understand the distinction.  Your problem is that you only look for what something can't be instead of what it is.  This is no different than when you claimed that religious influence has only been bad.  Or did you forget when you said that there was no baby in the bathwater that there was only dirty water?  Your lack of objectivity indicts you.
Click to expand...

You're the one who insisted I was wrong,  when I quoted his own words. Or,  more accurately,  quoted his own words,  as recorded in your book of fiction. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog

Here's the bottom line, dingdong; you keep wanting to "educate" me on the message of Jesus, when I made it clear that there isn't even any historical record that this Jesus of yours lived, let alone did the things you religiously believe he did.  Why?  What purpose do you think that will serve?  Until you can objectively prove that God exists, thqt Jesus existed, and that the God that does exist is, in fact, the God described in your book of fiction, Jesus could have told everyone that they should only eat hot dogs, while standing on one foot, and listening to religious hymns in that book of yours, and I wouldn't care, because it is a *work.  Of.  Fiction.*


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again?  Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was *not* the son of God to whom he was referring.  In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he *was* referring.
> 
> I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring  conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).
> 
> But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We haven't settled that.  He lied when he said he came to save the world? {John 3:17}?  How about when he said he came to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34)  Was he lying then?  Was he also lying when he said he came to "bring fire"? (Luke 12:459)
> 
> I mean, if the *only correct* answer to your question is found in John 18:37, then all of those other passages must have been him lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said before, it is no wonder you flunked out of seminary school if you can't understand the distinction.  Your problem is that you only look for what something can't be instead of what it is.  This is no different than when you claimed that religious influence has only been bad.  Or did you forget when you said that there was no baby in the bathwater that there was only dirty water?  Your lack of objectivity indicts you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who insisted I was wrong,  when I quoted his own words. Or,  more accurately,  quoted his own words,  as recorded in your book of fiction.
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually the point I was making was that you were not objective if you could not understand the distinction of the two verses and came to the conclusion that Jesus was lying.  Either you never made an effort to do so or you lied about going to seminary school.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> Here's the bottom line, dingdong; you keep wanting to "educate" me on the message of Jesus, when I made it clear that there isn't even any historical record that this Jesus of yours lived, let alone did the things you religiously believe he did.  Why?  What purpose do you think that will serve?  Until you can objectively prove that God exists, thqt Jesus existed, and that the God that does exist is, in fact, the God described in your book of fiction, Jesus could have told everyone that they should only eat hot dogs, while standing on one foot, and listening to religious hymns in that book of yours, and I wouldn't care, because it is a *work.  Of.  Fiction.*


No. I am not trying to educate you on Jesus. I am proving that you are not objective.  I have. no problem with you believing the Bible and Jesus are fictional. You have a problem with me believing they aren't.  That's why you troll religious forums. You have a problem with people believing they aren't.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.
> 
> 
> an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I don't worship a book.  But would you abolish Christianity if you could?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What crime have I committed again?  Do you even know what repent means?  And no, you didn't answer the question.  I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned.  Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil.  Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.  If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?
> 
> 
> christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.
> 
> _*
> And no, you didn't answer the question.*_
> 
> certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?
> 
> metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?










who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.

unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?

.*


.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't worship a book.  But would you abolish Christianity if you could?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What crime have I committed again?  Do you even know what repent means?  And no, you didn't answer the question.  I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned.  Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil.  Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.  If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?
> 
> 
> christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.
> 
> _*
> And no, you didn't answer the question.*_
> 
> certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?
> 
> metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.
> 
> unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?
> 
> .*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crime have I committed again?  Do you even know what repent means?  And no, you didn't answer the question.  I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned.  Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil.  Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.  If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?
> 
> 
> christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.
> 
> _*
> And no, you didn't answer the question.*_
> 
> certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?
> 
> metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.
> 
> unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?
> 
> .*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
Click to expand...

You are just terrified that someone is going to criminalise your superstition, aren't you?


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What crime have I committed again?  Do you even know what repent means?  And no, you didn't answer the question.  I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned.  Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil.  Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.  If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?
> 
> 
> christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.
> 
> _*
> And no, you didn't answer the question.*_
> 
> certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?
> 
> metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.
> 
> unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?
> 
> .*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just terrified that someone is going to criminalise your superstition, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Not at all.  I like to lead people to the logical conclusion of their argument like I did you.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?
> 
> 
> christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.
> 
> _*
> And no, you didn't answer the question.*_
> 
> certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?
> 
> metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.
> 
> unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?
> 
> .*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just terrified that someone is going to criminalise your superstition, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  I like to lead people to the logical conclusion of their argument like I did you.
Click to expand...

Except you didn't.  You keep *claiming* that i want to criminalise your religion, but I don't.  Will I be happy when it abolishes itself?  Yes.  Yes I will.  Do I feel any need to pass any authoritarian laws to criminalise a belief, however irrational, or idiotic?  Nope.

You see that is the conclusion we keep coming to.  You keep asking if I want to abolish it.  I keep pointing out to you that it is going to abolish itself, so I don't need to.

You see, the religious freedom found in the First Amendment gives you the right to believe whatever you want to believe, without government interference.  It does not, however, protect you from the scorn, mockery, and ridicule for that believe from others, such as myself.

In fact, the freedom of speech also found in the First Amendment gives me the right to mock, and ridicule to my beady little heart's desire.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> Except you didn't. You keep *claiming* that i want to criminalise your religion, but I don't. Will I be happy when it abolishes itself? Yes. Yes I will. Do I feel any need to pass any authoritarian laws to criminalise a belief, however irrational, or idiotic? Nope.
> 
> You see that is the conclusion we keep coming to. You keep asking if I want to abolish it. I keep pointing out to you that it is going to abolish itself, so I don't need to.



I wasn't talking to you about this just now.  You had your chance to argue this point.  Instead you amended your position from there is no baby in the bathwater to Christianity has done good.  Unfortunately you were unable to provide any justification for the basis of your belief that it has done some good.  In other words, you did an incomplete analysis which once again proved your lack of objectivity.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> You see, the religious freedom found in the First Amendment gives you the right to believe whatever you want to believe, without government interference. It does not, however, protect you from the scorn, mockery, and ridicule for that believe from others, such as myself.
> 
> In fact, the freedom of speech also found in the First Amendment gives me the right to mock, and ridicule to my beady little heart's desire.



Absolutely correct.  I am not arguing against that.  I am arguing against your bullshit claim that you don't go out of your way to mock people who have religious beliefs.  Of course you do.  You literally chase them down and seek them out by trolling religious forums.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crime have I committed again?  Do you even know what repent means?  And no, you didn't answer the question.  I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned.  Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil.  Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.  If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?
> 
> 
> christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.
> 
> _*
> And no, you didn't answer the question.*_
> 
> certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?
> 
> metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.
> 
> unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?
> 
> .*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?










my answer has twice been given to you, obviously you are in denial christian that's a little less than repentance ... to bad for you.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What crime have I committed again?  Do you even know what repent means?  And no, you didn't answer the question.  I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned.  Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil.  Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.  If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?
> 
> 
> christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.
> 
> _*
> And no, you didn't answer the question.*_
> 
> certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?
> 
> metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.
> 
> unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?
> 
> .*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my answer has twice been given to you, obviously you are in denial christian that's a little less than repentance ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Yes.  The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except you didn't. You keep *claiming* that i want to criminalise your religion, but I don't. Will I be happy when it abolishes itself? Yes. Yes I will. Do I feel any need to pass any authoritarian laws to criminalise a belief, however irrational, or idiotic? Nope.
> 
> You see that is the conclusion we keep coming to. You keep asking if I want to abolish it. I keep pointing out to you that it is going to abolish itself, so I don't need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you about this just now.  You had your chance to argue this point.  Instead you amended your position from there is no baby in the bathwater to Christianity has done good.  Unfortunately you were unable to provide any justification for the basis of your belief that it has done some good.  In other words, you did an incomplete analysis which once again proved your lack of objectivity.
Click to expand...

Wow...you really do like to make shit up as you go, and ignore anything that doesn't fit into your own self-righteous narrative.  I didn't amend my position.  I never claimed that Christianity has never had any positive influences.  You, on hte other hand, have yet to say what positive influences that *you* know it has had.  When asked all you could do was cut and paste the thoughts of someone else from Wikipedia, leaving me to presume that you, yourself, know of no positive influences at all.  I didn't just have a chance to argue this point.  i made you look stupid arguing this point, as I continue to do.  I understand that in your warped little brain, you think you're "winning", but you're not.  You just keep repeating the same lame points that I keep throwing back in your face, because you don't really do a lot of thinking.  You just parrot the thoughts of others.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> -  really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?
> 
> 
> christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.
> 
> _*
> And no, you didn't answer the question.*_
> 
> certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?
> 
> metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.
> 
> unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?
> 
> .*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my answer has twice been given to you, obviously you are in denial christian that's a little less than repentance ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
Click to expand...

.








ding said:


> Yes. The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.




no, the conclusions of my beliefs are not being discussed nor have a historical record it is the conclusion, illustration of your religion and your expression of misogyny that are the subject that is reprehensible and deplorable and existent in the present tense.

.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except you didn't. You keep *claiming* that i want to criminalise your religion, but I don't. Will I be happy when it abolishes itself? Yes. Yes I will. Do I feel any need to pass any authoritarian laws to criminalise a belief, however irrational, or idiotic? Nope.
> 
> You see that is the conclusion we keep coming to. You keep asking if I want to abolish it. I keep pointing out to you that it is going to abolish itself, so I don't need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you about this just now.  You had your chance to argue this point.  Instead you amended your position from there is no baby in the bathwater to Christianity has done good.  Unfortunately you were unable to provide any justification for the basis of your belief that it has done some good.  In other words, you did an incomplete analysis which once again proved your lack of objectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow...you really do like to make shit up as you go, and ignore anything that doesn't fit into your own self-righteous narrative.  I didn't amend my position.  I never claimed that Christianity has never had any positive influences.  You, on hte other hand, have yet to say what positive influences that *you* know it has had.  When asked all you could do was cut and paste the thoughts of someone else from Wikipedia, leaving me to presume that you, yourself, know of no positive influences at all.  I didn't just have a chance to argue this point.  i made you look stupid arguing this point, as I continue to do.  I understand that in your warped little brain, you think you're "winning", but you're not.  You just keep repeating the same lame points that I keep throwing back in your face, because you don't really do a lot of thinking.  You just parrot the thoughts of others.
Click to expand...

So you never said there was no baby, just dirty bathwater?


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein?  Or do you like having evil around?  Maybe we should burn them, huh?  Would you like that?
> 
> metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.
> 
> unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?
> 
> .*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my answer has twice been given to you, obviously you are in denial christian that's a little less than repentance ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, the conclusions of my beliefs are not being discussed nor have a historical record it is the conclusion, illustration of your religion and your expression of misogyny that are the subject that is reprehensible and deplorable and existent in the present tense.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You believe that Christianity is evil, right?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.
> 
> unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  .  *'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?
> 
> .*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my answer has twice been given to you, obviously you are in denial christian that's a little less than repentance ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, the conclusions of my beliefs are not being discussed nor have a historical record it is the conclusion, illustration of your religion and your expression of misogyny that are the subject that is reprehensible and deplorable and existent in the present tense.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
Click to expand...

.








ding said:


> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?




do you ask questions because you are afraid to answer them yourself ... troll.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my answer has twice been given to you, obviously you are in denial christian that's a little less than repentance ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, the conclusions of my beliefs are not being discussed nor have a historical record it is the conclusion, illustration of your religion and your expression of misogyny that are the subject that is reprehensible and deplorable and existent in the present tense.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> do you ask questions because you are afraid to answer them yourself ... troll.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I don't reject Christ. I believe in One God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  I don't apologize for Christianity.  I believe that by any objective measure that Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of man.  I believe that you believe that Christianity is evil and would abolish it f you could. How's that?  What else do you need to know?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my answer has twice been given to you, obviously you are in denial christian that's a little less than repentance ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, the conclusions of my beliefs are not being discussed nor have a historical record it is the conclusion, illustration of your religion and your expression of misogyny that are the subject that is reprehensible and deplorable and existent in the present tense.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> do you ask questions because you are afraid to answer them yourself ... troll.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't reject Christ. I believe in One God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  I don't apologize for Christianity.  I believe that by any objective measure that Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of man.  I believe that you believe that Christianity is evil and would abolish it f you could. How's that?  What else do you need to know?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> I don't reject Christ ... I believe that you believe



you haven't the liberty to do both ... the latter seems to be the real bing.

_*
' Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani '*_  -

represents the spoken religion from antiquity and the final chapter for who spoke it.


try as you may your written text will someday vanish and with it your beliefs, if that is all you are.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The logical conclusion of your beliefs are self evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, the conclusions of my beliefs are not being discussed nor have a historical record it is the conclusion, illustration of your religion and your expression of misogyny that are the subject that is reprehensible and deplorable and existent in the present tense.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> do you ask questions because you are afraid to answer them yourself ... troll.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't reject Christ. I believe in One God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  I don't apologize for Christianity.  I believe that by any objective measure that Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of man.  I believe that you believe that Christianity is evil and would abolish it f you could. How's that?  What else do you need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't reject Christ ... I believe that you believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you haven't the liberty to do both ... the latter seems to be the real bing.
> 
> _*
> ' Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani '*_  -
> 
> represents the spoken religion from antiquity and the final chapter for who spoke it.
> 
> 
> try as you may your written text will someday vanish and with it your beliefs, if that is all you are.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*John 14:26, **Romans 8:26, Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 6:19, John 14:15-17, Isaiah 11:2, Luke 11:13*

*2 Corinthians 3:17 *

*Romans 15:13*

*Ezekiel 36:26-27*

*1 Corinthians 2:13*

*Ephesians 1:13*

*Romans 8:9*

*Romans 5:5*

*I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me.   *


----------



## RWS

You left it at "I', so I'm wondering did you just continue on with the other imaginary figures they were promoting in your mind, or did you step back and think a bit...

I know at a young age it's hard to do, but I realized it even before I knew Santa wasn't real. I am Cuban and grew up in a Catholic household. But even as a young child it never made sense to me. It never settled into my mind as being a truth. And when I got older, I took the opportunity to study other religions (before the internet) and other ideas. 

My conclusion was that as long as I'm a good person, and do things that are conducive to the betterment of society and the world, it REALLY doesn't matter what I believe. All that belief stuff is junk, used by snake-oil salesmen to make money and gain power. 

Being a good person that cares about things should be good enough for the world. 

Because when I got older, and really learned the truly horrific acts that were committed by religions and their followers, that totally blew away any possibility that one of their made-up Gods were true.

And then.... I learned about ancient civilizations (esp Sumer), and what they actually wrote. And how those ancient texts were completely changed over time to suit a religion that an upcoming ruler wanted. Thus the original texts by the Sumerians, where plagerized and changed to suit later polytheistic and monotheistic "religions". The great "evil" being monotheism and the Old Testament.


----------



## RWS

And THEN... I learned a possible truth that explains everything in all our crazy god-fearing ways... and adds some science to the mixture.

The ancient rulers and teachers the Sumerians called the Anunnaki.

Those peeps can be an explanation of both human evolution AND creation, at the same time! And it actually makes a lot of sense...

Anunnaki = "Those who from Heaven to Earth Came"

The Anunnaki are the basis of practically every major religion on Earth. Yet ignored today.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> You left it at "I', so I'm wondering did you just continue on with the other imaginary figures they were promoting in your mind, or did you step back and think a bit...
> 
> I know at a young age it's hard to do, but I realized it even before I knew Santa wasn't real. I am Cuban and grew up in a Catholic household. But even as a young child it never made sense to me. It never settled into my mind as being a truth. And when I got older, I took the opportunity to study other religions (before the internet) and other ideas.
> 
> My conclusion was that as long as I'm a good person, and do things that are conducive to the betterment of society and the world, it REALLY doesn't matter what I believe. All that belief stuff is junk, used by snake-oil salesmen to make money and gain power.
> 
> Being a good person that cares about things should be good enough for the world.
> 
> Because when I got older, and really learned the truly horrific acts that were committed by religions and their followers, that totally blew away any possibility that one of their made-up Gods were true.
> 
> And then.... I learned about ancient civilizations (esp Sumer), and what they actually wrote. And how those ancient texts were completely changed over time to suit a religion that an upcoming ruler wanted. Thus the original texts by the Sumerians, where plagerized and changed to suit later polytheistic and monotheistic "religions". The great "evil" being monotheism and the Old Testament.


It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left it at "I', so I'm wondering did you just continue on with the other imaginary figures they were promoting in your mind, or did you step back and think a bit...
> 
> I know at a young age it's hard to do, but I realized it even before I knew Santa wasn't real. I am Cuban and grew up in a Catholic household. But even as a young child it never made sense to me. It never settled into my mind as being a truth. And when I got older, I took the opportunity to study other religions (before the internet) and other ideas.
> 
> My conclusion was that as long as I'm a good person, and do things that are conducive to the betterment of society and the world, it REALLY doesn't matter what I believe. All that belief stuff is junk, used by snake-oil salesmen to make money and gain power.
> 
> Being a good person that cares about things should be good enough for the world.
> 
> Because when I got older, and really learned the truly horrific acts that were committed by religions and their followers, that totally blew away any possibility that one of their made-up Gods were true.
> 
> And then.... I learned about ancient civilizations (esp Sumer), and what they actually wrote. And how those ancient texts were completely changed over time to suit a religion that an upcoming ruler wanted. Thus the original texts by the Sumerians, where plagerized and changed to suit later polytheistic and monotheistic "religions". The great "evil" being monotheism and the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
Click to expand...

Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left it at "I', so I'm wondering did you just continue on with the other imaginary figures they were promoting in your mind, or did you step back and think a bit...
> 
> I know at a young age it's hard to do, but I realized it even before I knew Santa wasn't real. I am Cuban and grew up in a Catholic household. But even as a young child it never made sense to me. It never settled into my mind as being a truth. And when I got older, I took the opportunity to study other religions (before the internet) and other ideas.
> 
> My conclusion was that as long as I'm a good person, and do things that are conducive to the betterment of society and the world, it REALLY doesn't matter what I believe. All that belief stuff is junk, used by snake-oil salesmen to make money and gain power.
> 
> Being a good person that cares about things should be good enough for the world.
> 
> Because when I got older, and really learned the truly horrific acts that were committed by religions and their followers, that totally blew away any possibility that one of their made-up Gods were true.
> 
> And then.... I learned about ancient civilizations (esp Sumer), and what they actually wrote. And how those ancient texts were completely changed over time to suit a religion that an upcoming ruler wanted. Thus the original texts by the Sumerians, where plagerized and changed to suit later polytheistic and monotheistic "religions". The great "evil" being monotheism and the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
Click to expand...

Sure, now what good has religion done?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left it at "I', so I'm wondering did you just continue on with the other imaginary figures they were promoting in your mind, or did you step back and think a bit...
> 
> I know at a young age it's hard to do, but I realized it even before I knew Santa wasn't real. I am Cuban and grew up in a Catholic household. But even as a young child it never made sense to me. It never settled into my mind as being a truth. And when I got older, I took the opportunity to study other religions (before the internet) and other ideas.
> 
> My conclusion was that as long as I'm a good person, and do things that are conducive to the betterment of society and the world, it REALLY doesn't matter what I believe. All that belief stuff is junk, used by snake-oil salesmen to make money and gain power.
> 
> Being a good person that cares about things should be good enough for the world.
> 
> Because when I got older, and really learned the truly horrific acts that were committed by religions and their followers, that totally blew away any possibility that one of their made-up Gods were true.
> 
> And then.... I learned about ancient civilizations (esp Sumer), and what they actually wrote. And how those ancient texts were completely changed over time to suit a religion that an upcoming ruler wanted. Thus the original texts by the Sumerians, where plagerized and changed to suit later polytheistic and monotheistic "religions". The great "evil" being monotheism and the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
Click to expand...

Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
The rejection of science?
Making women second class citizens?
Anything else?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left it at "I', so I'm wondering did you just continue on with the other imaginary figures they were promoting in your mind, or did you step back and think a bit...
> 
> I know at a young age it's hard to do, but I realized it even before I knew Santa wasn't real. I am Cuban and grew up in a Catholic household. But even as a young child it never made sense to me. It never settled into my mind as being a truth. And when I got older, I took the opportunity to study other religions (before the internet) and other ideas.
> 
> My conclusion was that as long as I'm a good person, and do things that are conducive to the betterment of society and the world, it REALLY doesn't matter what I believe. All that belief stuff is junk, used by snake-oil salesmen to make money and gain power.
> 
> Being a good person that cares about things should be good enough for the world.
> 
> Because when I got older, and really learned the truly horrific acts that were committed by religions and their followers, that totally blew away any possibility that one of their made-up Gods were true.
> 
> And then.... I learned about ancient civilizations (esp Sumer), and what they actually wrote. And how those ancient texts were completely changed over time to suit a religion that an upcoming ruler wanted. Thus the original texts by the Sumerians, where plagerized and changed to suit later polytheistic and monotheistic "religions". The great "evil" being monotheism and the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
Click to expand...

You lack of objectivity is showing.


----------



## Czernobog

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left it at "I', so I'm wondering did you just continue on with the other imaginary figures they were promoting in your mind, or did you step back and think a bit...
> 
> I know at a young age it's hard to do, but I realized it even before I knew Santa wasn't real. I am Cuban and grew up in a Catholic household. But even as a young child it never made sense to me. It never settled into my mind as being a truth. And when I got older, I took the opportunity to study other religions (before the internet) and other ideas.
> 
> My conclusion was that as long as I'm a good person, and do things that are conducive to the betterment of society and the world, it REALLY doesn't matter what I believe. All that belief stuff is junk, used by snake-oil salesmen to make money and gain power.
> 
> Being a good person that cares about things should be good enough for the world.
> 
> Because when I got older, and really learned the truly horrific acts that were committed by religions and their followers, that totally blew away any possibility that one of their made-up Gods were true.
> 
> And then.... I learned about ancient civilizations (esp Sumer), and what they actually wrote. And how those ancient texts were completely changed over time to suit a religion that an upcoming ruler wanted. Thus the original texts by the Sumerians, where plagerized and changed to suit later polytheistic and monotheistic "religions". The great "evil" being monotheism and the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
Click to expand...

He's going to accuse you of wanting to criminalise religion, next, Mudda.  Wait for it...


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left it at "I', so I'm wondering did you just continue on with the other imaginary figures they were promoting in your mind, or did you step back and think a bit...
> 
> I know at a young age it's hard to do, but I realized it even before I knew Santa wasn't real. I am Cuban and grew up in a Catholic household. But even as a young child it never made sense to me. It never settled into my mind as being a truth. And when I got older, I took the opportunity to study other religions (before the internet) and other ideas.
> 
> My conclusion was that as long as I'm a good person, and do things that are conducive to the betterment of society and the world, it REALLY doesn't matter what I believe. All that belief stuff is junk, used by snake-oil salesmen to make money and gain power.
> 
> Being a good person that cares about things should be good enough for the world.
> 
> Because when I got older, and really learned the truly horrific acts that were committed by religions and their followers, that totally blew away any possibility that one of their made-up Gods were true.
> 
> And then.... I learned about ancient civilizations (esp Sumer), and what they actually wrote. And how those ancient texts were completely changed over time to suit a religion that an upcoming ruler wanted. Thus the original texts by the Sumerians, where plagerized and changed to suit later polytheistic and monotheistic "religions". The great "evil" being monotheism and the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's going to accuse you of wanting to criminalise religion, next, Mudda.  Wait for it...
Click to expand...

No.  I will ask him if he wants to criminalize religion next.  I may walk him through the logical conclusion of his beliefs like I did you and then you amended your position because of it.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's going to accuse you of wanting to criminalise religion, next, Mudda.  Wait for it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I will ask him if he wants to criminalize religion next.  I may walk him through the logical conclusion of his beliefs like I did you and then you amended your position because of it.
Click to expand...

Semantics.  No you didn't.  I started with the position that I have no desire, nor need, to criminalise religion.  And I ended with the position that I have no desire, nor need to criminalise religion.  You changed nothing with your irrational paranoia of what my position is.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's going to accuse you of wanting to criminalise religion, next, Mudda.  Wait for it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I will ask him if he wants to criminalize religion next.  I may walk him through the logical conclusion of his beliefs like I did you and then you amended your position because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semantics.  No you didn't.  I started with the position that I have no desire, nor need, to criminalise religion.  And I ended with the position that I have no desire, nor need to criminalise religion.  You changed nothing with your irrational paranoia of what my position is.
Click to expand...

You started from the position that there was no baby in the bathwater, just dirty warter.  As I progressed you through your logic you amended your position to that of religion has influenced man for some good - albeit a very half-assed analysis - which revealed your lack of objectivity on religion.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> 
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's going to accuse you of wanting to criminalise religion, next, Mudda.  Wait for it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I will ask him if he wants to criminalize religion next.  I may walk him through the logical conclusion of his beliefs like I did you and then you amended your position because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semantics.  No you didn't.  I started with the position that I have no desire, nor need, to criminalise religion.  And I ended with the position that I have no desire, nor need to criminalise religion.  You changed nothing with your irrational paranoia of what my position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You started from the position that there was no baby in the bathwater, just dirty warter.  As I progressed you through your logic you amended your position to that of religion has influenced man for some good - albeit a very half-assed analysis - which revealed your lack of objectivity on religion.
Click to expand...

There is still only dirty water.  Guess what?  Even dirty water removes mud from the body.  The lacking "baby" is your invisible magic skyman.  what little "good" is accomplished by your religion can be accomplished just as effectively by simply doing away with outdated myths altogether.  Sill no change from my original position.  Like I said, you *think* you have accomplished something that you never did.  I never said that relgion hasn't had a modicum of positive influence.  Only that the negative influences make the positive not worth the cost.

Take the paedophile priest.  If that priest is an excellent marriage counsellor, and helps a few couples avoid divorce, is that minor positive influence really worth all of the damage that he does diddling children?  I think not.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to accuse you of wanting to criminalise religion, next, Mudda.  Wait for it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I will ask him if he wants to criminalize religion next.  I may walk him through the logical conclusion of his beliefs like I did you and then you amended your position because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semantics.  No you didn't.  I started with the position that I have no desire, nor need, to criminalise religion.  And I ended with the position that I have no desire, nor need to criminalise religion.  You changed nothing with your irrational paranoia of what my position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You started from the position that there was no baby in the bathwater, just dirty warter.  As I progressed you through your logic you amended your position to that of religion has influenced man for some good - albeit a very half-assed analysis - which revealed your lack of objectivity on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is still only dirty water.  Guess what?  Even dirty water removes mud from the body.  The lacking "baby" is your invisible magic skyman.  what little "good" is accomplished by your religion can be accomplished just as effectively by simply doing away with outdated myths altogether.  Sill no change from my original position.  Like I said, you *think* you have accomplished something that you never did.  I never said that relgion hasn't had a modicum of positive influence.  Only that the negative influences make the positive not worth the cost.
> 
> Take the paedophile priest.  If that priest is an excellent marriage counsellor, and helps a few couples avoid divorce, is that minor positive influence really worth all of the damage that he does diddling children?  I think not.
Click to expand...

The baby in the bathwater discussion was on religion, not God.  Even now, you cannot force yourself to acknowledge the overwhelming good religion has done for mankind.  Even now you cannot acknowledge that your beliefs are in line with the founding fathers of communism and in opposition of the beliefs of the founding fathers of freedom and liberty.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to accuse you of wanting to criminalise religion, next, Mudda.  Wait for it...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I will ask him if he wants to criminalize religion next.  I may walk him through the logical conclusion of his beliefs like I did you and then you amended your position because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semantics.  No you didn't.  I started with the position that I have no desire, nor need, to criminalise religion.  And I ended with the position that I have no desire, nor need to criminalise religion.  You changed nothing with your irrational paranoia of what my position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You started from the position that there was no baby in the bathwater, just dirty warter.  As I progressed you through your logic you amended your position to that of religion has influenced man for some good - albeit a very half-assed analysis - which revealed your lack of objectivity on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is still only dirty water.  Guess what?  Even dirty water removes mud from the body.  The lacking "baby" is your invisible magic skyman.  what little "good" is accomplished by your religion can be accomplished just as effectively by simply doing away with outdated myths altogether.  Sill no change from my original position.  Like I said, you *think* you have accomplished something that you never did.  I never said that relgion hasn't had a modicum of positive influence.  Only that the negative influences make the positive not worth the cost.
> 
> Take the paedophile priest.  If that priest is an excellent marriage counsellor, and helps a few couples avoid divorce, is that minor positive influence really worth all of the damage that he does diddling children?  I think not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baby in the bathwater discussion was on religion, not God.  Even now, you cannot force yourself to acknowledge the overwhelming good religion has done for mankind.  Even now you cannot acknowledge that your beliefs are in line with the founding fathers of communism and in opposition of the beliefs of the founding fathers of freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...

And the core of religion, at least the majority of *organised* religion is the invisible magic skyman.  If your proposition is that the core of your religion is the morality, and ethics, then sure, with a bit of tweaking, you shouldn't "throw out the baby with the bathwater".  I have never suggested that we live in an amoral society; only that your God is unnecessary for people to develop morals, and ethics.  Instead of teaching people that "God" wants them to do behave in a certain way, why not just teach them that behaving in a certain way creates a more healthy society?  See?  No invisible skyman necvessary.


----------



## Pete7469

God exists.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

RWS said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you have made a mistake about science.  Science doesn't "hold all of the answers"; nor does it claim to.  Science freely admits that it doesn't know.  However, it follows that admission with an invitation: "Let's find out!"
> 
> It is *religion* that claims to have all of the answers, because in religion, whenever one runs up against "I don't know", religion responds with the ready made response: "God did it,"
> 
> And, therein is the end of exploration, and research.  After all, why look for reasons, when the answer is already known?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 100535
> 
> Yet all the atheists appear to think they know that there is no God because they appear to think that science does hold all the answers.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't have all the answers... yet. But it does have a huge chunk of them. Religion holds on by a thread, asking eternal questions that science has not answered yet (and probably never will).
> 
> Regardless of our debates, you are going to believe what you were born to believe, and there's no way for me to change your mind.
> 
> But I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to make you understand that your religion is highly likely not correct. And therefore there is no need to continue to kill and despise others that think differently than your religion.
> 
> Keep it as a personal faith, something that makes you feel good inside, but STOP trying to push it onto others and dictating the way the world should be, based on a Santa Claus religion.
> 
> Open your mind to reality. That's what I'm trying to help do. There are so many wondrous things to think about, once you step outside that religious coffin...
Click to expand...






Which religious coffin would that be?

The only thing I've suggested is that a miracle occurred....

You on the other hand seem intent on pushing your beliefs upon myself and others while providing no proof to back up your beliefs other than to say 'science doesn't have all the answers'. Then you make unfounded statements about my beliefs without proof to substantiate your claims. You're the one attacking my beliefs and attempting to dictate what I should do and believe when all I've done is ask a simple question about your beliefs. Then there is the possibility that everything you think you know about science is incorrect, especially at the quantum level, and that it's a complete do over. Perhaps it is you who should open your mind to reality instead of boxing yourself in and shutting out possibilities.

.....Of course if a miracle had occurred then that would imply that there most likely is a God.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I will ask him if he wants to criminalize religion next.  I may walk him through the logical conclusion of his beliefs like I did you and then you amended your position because of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.  No you didn't.  I started with the position that I have no desire, nor need, to criminalise religion.  And I ended with the position that I have no desire, nor need to criminalise religion.  You changed nothing with your irrational paranoia of what my position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You started from the position that there was no baby in the bathwater, just dirty warter.  As I progressed you through your logic you amended your position to that of religion has influenced man for some good - albeit a very half-assed analysis - which revealed your lack of objectivity on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is still only dirty water.  Guess what?  Even dirty water removes mud from the body.  The lacking "baby" is your invisible magic skyman.  what little "good" is accomplished by your religion can be accomplished just as effectively by simply doing away with outdated myths altogether.  Sill no change from my original position.  Like I said, you *think* you have accomplished something that you never did.  I never said that relgion hasn't had a modicum of positive influence.  Only that the negative influences make the positive not worth the cost.
> 
> Take the paedophile priest.  If that priest is an excellent marriage counsellor, and helps a few couples avoid divorce, is that minor positive influence really worth all of the damage that he does diddling children?  I think not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baby in the bathwater discussion was on religion, not God.  Even now, you cannot force yourself to acknowledge the overwhelming good religion has done for mankind.  Even now you cannot acknowledge that your beliefs are in line with the founding fathers of communism and in opposition of the beliefs of the founding fathers of freedom and liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the core of religion, at least the majority of *organised* religion is the invisible magic skyman.  If your proposition is that the core of your religion is the morality, and ethics, then sure, with a bit of tweaking, you shouldn't "throw out the baby with the bathwater".  I have never suggested that we live in an amoral society; only that your God is unnecessary for people to develop morals, and ethics.  Instead of teaching people that "God" wants them to do behave in a certain way, why not just teach them that behaving in a certain way creates a more healthy society?  See?  No invisible skyman necvessary.
Click to expand...

Sorry.  They go hand in hand.  

"...As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward."  Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address


----------



## Czernobog

Pete7469 said:


> God exists.


Because you say so?  Sorry, I am a man of reason, and science.  I need a bit more than that.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you say so?  Sorry, I am a man of reason, and science.  I need a bit more than that.
Click to expand...

No.  Because reason and experience say so.  And although you profess to be a man of science you have demonstrated that you do little more than pay lip service to it.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, the conclusions of my beliefs are not being discussed nor have a historical record it is the conclusion, illustration of your religion and your expression of misogyny that are the subject that is reprehensible and deplorable and existent in the present tense.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> do you ask questions because you are afraid to answer them yourself ... troll.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't reject Christ. I believe in One God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  I don't apologize for Christianity.  I believe that by any objective measure that Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of man.  I believe that you believe that Christianity is evil and would abolish it f you could. How's that?  What else do you need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't reject Christ ... I believe that you believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you haven't the liberty to do both ... the latter seems to be the real bing.
> 
> _*
> ' Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani '*_  -
> 
> represents the spoken religion from antiquity and the final chapter for who spoke it.
> 
> 
> try as you may your written text will someday vanish and with it your beliefs, if that is all you are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *John 14:26, **Romans 8:26, Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 6:19, John 14:15-17, Isaiah 11:2, Luke 11:13*
> 
> *2 Corinthians 3:17 *
> 
> *Romans 15:13*
> 
> *Ezekiel 36:26-27*
> 
> *1 Corinthians 2:13*
> 
> *Ephesians 1:13*
> 
> *Romans 8:9*
> 
> *Romans 5:5*
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me.   *
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me. *




reading your way to the Everlasting ... good luck.


the "it" you rely on was canonized ~ 395 AD having nothing to do with the event and is a political document vaguely disguised as a religion, readymade for people similar to themselves ... bing. * as proven over history since that time to the present.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that Christianity is evil, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> do you ask questions because you are afraid to answer them yourself ... troll.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't reject Christ. I believe in One God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  I don't apologize for Christianity.  I believe that by any objective measure that Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of man.  I believe that you believe that Christianity is evil and would abolish it f you could. How's that?  What else do you need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't reject Christ ... I believe that you believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you haven't the liberty to do both ... the latter seems to be the real bing.
> 
> _*
> ' Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani '*_  -
> 
> represents the spoken religion from antiquity and the final chapter for who spoke it.
> 
> 
> try as you may your written text will someday vanish and with it your beliefs, if that is all you are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *John 14:26, **Romans 8:26, Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 6:19, John 14:15-17, Isaiah 11:2, Luke 11:13*
> 
> *2 Corinthians 3:17 *
> 
> *Romans 15:13*
> 
> *Ezekiel 36:26-27*
> 
> *1 Corinthians 2:13*
> 
> *Ephesians 1:13*
> 
> *Romans 8:9*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]Romans 5:5[/URL]*
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> reading your way to the Everlasting ... good luck.
> 
> 
> the "it" you rely on was canonized ~ 395 AD having nothing to do with the event and is a political document vaguely disguised as a religion, readymade for people similar to themselves ... bing. * as proven over history since that time to the present.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left it at "I', so I'm wondering did you just continue on with the other imaginary figures they were promoting in your mind, or did you step back and think a bit...
> 
> I know at a young age it's hard to do, but I realized it even before I knew Santa wasn't real. I am Cuban and grew up in a Catholic household. But even as a young child it never made sense to me. It never settled into my mind as being a truth. And when I got older, I took the opportunity to study other religions (before the internet) and other ideas.
> 
> My conclusion was that as long as I'm a good person, and do things that are conducive to the betterment of society and the world, it REALLY doesn't matter what I believe. All that belief stuff is junk, used by snake-oil salesmen to make money and gain power.
> 
> Being a good person that cares about things should be good enough for the world.
> 
> Because when I got older, and really learned the truly horrific acts that were committed by religions and their followers, that totally blew away any possibility that one of their made-up Gods were true.
> 
> And then.... I learned about ancient civilizations (esp Sumer), and what they actually wrote. And how those ancient texts were completely changed over time to suit a religion that an upcoming ruler wanted. Thus the original texts by the Sumerians, where plagerized and changed to suit later polytheistic and monotheistic "religions". The great "evil" being monotheism and the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lack of objectivity is showing.
Click to expand...

Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lack of objectivity is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
Click to expand...

1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
       a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
       b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
       c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
       d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
       e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
       f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
      g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
      h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
       i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
       j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
      k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
       l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
     m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
      n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
      o)    Religion serves to create traditions
      p)    Religion brings order to our lives
      q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
       r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
      s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
      a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
              i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
             ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
            iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
            iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
             v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
                   (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
      b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
      c)    Religion gave us America
      d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
      e)    Religion gave us incredible music
       f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture 
      g)    Christianity has spread democracy
      h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
       i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
       j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
      k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
       l)    Christians ended the cold war.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that in your analysis you forgot to look at the good things that were done by the Church and religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lack of objectivity is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
Click to expand...

Communism is naturalized humanism.  Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs.  Vladimir Lenin


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lack of objectivity is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for all the things religion thinks it does, but what it actually does. Please try again.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lack of objectivity is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.  Karl Marx
> 
> The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs.  Vladimir Lenin
Click to expand...

It's a habit of yours to worship what long dead people may have once said. You learn that from the bible?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> 
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lack of objectivity is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ask for all the things religion thinks it does, but what it actually does. Please try again.
Click to expand...

1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
       a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
       b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
       c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
       d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
       e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
       f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
      g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
      h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
       i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
       j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
      k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
       l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
     m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
      n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
      o)    Religion serves to create traditions
      p)    Religion brings order to our lives
      q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
       r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
      s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
      a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
              i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
             ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
            iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
            iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
             v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
                   (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
      b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
      c)    Religion gave us America
      d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
      e)    Religion gave us incredible music
       f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
      g)    Christianity has spread democracy
      h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
       i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
       j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
      k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
       l)    Christians ended the cold war.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> You lack of objectivity is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ask for all the things religion thinks it does, but what it actually does. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
Click to expand...

Just as an example, religion didn't put a man on the moon, science and men did. That they might have been religious is irrelevant. It wasn't the study of religion that put men on the moon.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lack of objectivity is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ask for all the things religion thinks it does, but what it actually does. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as an example, religion didn't put a man on the moon, science and men did. That they might have been religious is irrelevant. It wasn't the study of religion that put men on the moon.
Click to expand...

2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
a) No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
i) Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
ii) Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
iii) The Catholic Church invented the university
iv) Western law grew out of Church canon law
v) the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
(1) The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
b) Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
c) Religion gave us America
d) Religion gave us incredible artwork
e) Religion gave us incredible music
f) Religion gave us incredible architecture
g) Christianity has spread democracy
h) Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
i) Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
j) Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
k) Christians put a man on the moon.
l) Christians ended the cold war.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ask for all the things religion thinks it does, but what it actually does. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as an example, religion didn't put a man on the moon, science and men did. That they might have been religious is irrelevant. It wasn't the study of religion that put men on the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a) No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i) Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii) Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii) The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv) Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v) the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1) The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b) Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c) Religion gave us America
> d) Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e) Religion gave us incredible music
> f) Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g) Christianity has spread democracy
> h) Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i) Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j) Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k) Christians put a man on the moon.
> l) Christians ended the cold war.
Click to expand...

Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for all the things religion thinks it does, but what it actually does. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as an example, religion didn't put a man on the moon, science and men did. That they might have been religious is irrelevant. It wasn't the study of religion that put men on the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a) No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i) Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii) Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii) The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv) Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v) the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1) The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b) Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c) Religion gave us America
> d) Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e) Religion gave us incredible music
> f) Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g) Christianity has spread democracy
> h) Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i) Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j) Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k) Christians put a man on the moon.
> l) Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
Click to expand...

Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
       a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
       b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
       c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
       d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
       e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
       f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
      g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
      h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
       i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
       j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
      k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
       l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
     m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
      n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
      o)    Religion serves to create traditions
      p)    Religion brings order to our lives
      q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
       r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
      s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you ask questions because you are afraid to answer them yourself ... troll.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I don't reject Christ. I believe in One God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  I don't apologize for Christianity.  I believe that by any objective measure that Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of man.  I believe that you believe that Christianity is evil and would abolish it f you could. How's that?  What else do you need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't reject Christ ... I believe that you believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you haven't the liberty to do both ... the latter seems to be the real bing.
> 
> _*
> ' Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani '*_  -
> 
> represents the spoken religion from antiquity and the final chapter for who spoke it.
> 
> 
> try as you may your written text will someday vanish and with it your beliefs, if that is all you are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *John 14:26, **Romans 8:26, Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 6:19, John 14:15-17, Isaiah 11:2, Luke 11:13*
> 
> *2 Corinthians 3:17 *
> 
> *Romans 15:13*
> 
> *Ezekiel 36:26-27*
> 
> *1 Corinthians 2:13*
> 
> *Ephesians 1:13*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard VersionRomans 8:9[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]Romans 5:5[/URL]*
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> reading your way to the Everlasting ... good luck.
> 
> 
> the "it" you rely on was canonized ~ 395 AD having nothing to do with the event and is a political document vaguely disguised as a religion, readymade for people similar to themselves ... bing. * as proven over history since that time to the present.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
Click to expand...

.








ding said:


> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.




we are already aware of the direction your religion leads you ... your lack of repentance is disturbing and foreboding for the near future.

.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you say so?  Sorry, I am a man of reason, and science.  I need a bit more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Because reason and experience say so.  And although you profess to be a man of science you have demonstrated that you do little more than pay lip service to it.
Click to expand...

They diobn't, no matter how many times you keep insisting otherwise.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for all the things religion thinks it does, but what it actually does. Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as an example, religion didn't put a man on the moon, science and men did. That they might have been religious is irrelevant. It wasn't the study of religion that put men on the moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a) No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i) Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii) Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii) The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv) Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v) the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1) The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b) Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c) Religion gave us America
> d) Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e) Religion gave us incredible music
> f) Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g) Christianity has spread democracy
> h) Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i) Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j) Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k) Christians put a man on the moon.
> l) Christians ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
Click to expand...

It's not the first time that I sent you on tilt.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you say so?  Sorry, I am a man of reason, and science.  I need a bit more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Because reason and experience say so.  And although you profess to be a man of science you have demonstrated that you do little more than pay lip service to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They diobn't, no matter how many times you keep insisting otherwise.
Click to expand...

If you are going to blame adherents for doing bad, you must recognize them for doing good.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't reject Christ. I believe in One God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  I don't apologize for Christianity.  I believe that by any objective measure that Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of man.  I believe that you believe that Christianity is evil and would abolish it f you could. How's that?  What else do you need to know?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't reject Christ ... I believe that you believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you haven't the liberty to do both ... the latter seems to be the real bing.
> 
> _*
> ' Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani '*_  -
> 
> represents the spoken religion from antiquity and the final chapter for who spoke it.
> 
> 
> try as you may your written text will someday vanish and with it your beliefs, if that is all you are.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *John 14:26, **Romans 8:26, Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 6:19, John 14:15-17, Isaiah 11:2, Luke 11:13*
> 
> *2 Corinthians 3:17 *
> 
> *Romans 15:13*
> 
> *Ezekiel 36:26-27*
> 
> *1 Corinthians 2:13*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 1:13 - English Standard VersionEphesians 1:13[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard Version[/URL]Romans 8:9[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]Romans 5:5[/URL]*
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> reading your way to the Everlasting ... good luck.
> 
> 
> the "it" you rely on was canonized ~ 395 AD having nothing to do with the event and is a political document vaguely disguised as a religion, readymade for people similar to themselves ... bing. * as proven over history since that time to the present.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> we are already aware of the direction your religion leads you ... your lack of repentance is disturbing and foreboding for the near future.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

What would you like me to repent for again?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> What would you like me to repent for again?


For being a hater and an all around asshole for starters.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> you haven't the liberty to do both ... the latter seems to be the real bing.
> 
> _*
> ' Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani '*_  -
> 
> represents the spoken religion from antiquity and the final chapter for who spoke it.
> 
> 
> try as you may your written text will someday vanish and with it your beliefs, if that is all you are.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *John 14:26, **Romans 8:26, Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 6:19, John 14:15-17, Isaiah 11:2, Luke 11:13*
> 
> *2 Corinthians 3:17 *
> 
> *Romans 15:13*
> 
> *Ezekiel 36:26-27*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 2:13 - English Standard Version1 Corinthians 2:13[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 1:13 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 1:13 - English Standard Version[/URL]Ephesians 1:13[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard Version[/URL]Romans 8:9[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]Romans 5:5[/URL]*
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> reading your way to the Everlasting ... good luck.
> 
> 
> the "it" you rely on was canonized ~ 395 AD having nothing to do with the event and is a political document vaguely disguised as a religion, readymade for people similar to themselves ... bing. * as proven over history since that time to the present.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> we are already aware of the direction your religion leads you ... your lack of repentance is disturbing and foreboding for the near future.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> What would you like me to repent for again?








that's obvious ...


your political document disguised by religion was canonized 394 AD, to find the Almighty you will have to unbind your transgressions. you must seek forgiveness from your victims. 

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *John 14:26, **Romans 8:26, Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 6:19, John 14:15-17, Isaiah 11:2, Luke 11:13*
> 
> *2 Corinthians 3:17 *
> 
> *Romans 15:13*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 36:26-27 - English Standard VersionEzekiel 36:26-27[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 2:13 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 2:13 - English Standard Version[/URL]1 Corinthians 2:13[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 1:13 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 1:13 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 1:13 - English Standard Version[/URL]Ephesians 1:13[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:9 - English Standard Version[/URL]Romans 8:9[/URL]*
> 
> *"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]"]Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:5 - English Standard Version[/URL]Romans 5:5[/URL]*
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have chosen the better portion, it will not be taken away from me. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> reading your way to the Everlasting ... good luck.
> 
> 
> the "it" you rely on was canonized ~ 395 AD having nothing to do with the event and is a political document vaguely disguised as a religion, readymade for people similar to themselves ... bing. * as proven over history since that time to the present.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> we are already aware of the direction your religion leads you ... your lack of repentance is disturbing and foreboding for the near future.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's obvious ...
> 
> 
> your political document disguised by religion was canonized 394 AD, to find the Almighty you will have to unbind your transgressions. you must seek forgiveness from your victims.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I wish you would be more clear about what you want me to repent about.  You should come right out and say it, brother.  Stop beating around the bush.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
> 
> 
> 
> For being a hater and an all around asshole for starters.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you are an all around asshole.  I'm sure you have some good with your life.  You at least generate CO2 for plants.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
> 
> 
> 
> For being a hater and an all around asshole for starters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe you are an all around asshole.  I'm sure you have some good with your life.  You at least generate CO2 for plants.
Click to expand...

Pretending to not understand what I said? Lame.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
> 
> 
> 
> For being a hater and an all around asshole for starters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe you are an all around asshole.  I'm sure you have some good with your life.  You at least generate CO2 for plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretending to not understand what I said? Lame.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what repent means in the context of Christianity?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
> 
> 
> 
> For being a hater and an all around asshole for starters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe you are an all around asshole.  I'm sure you have some good with your life.  You at least generate CO2 for plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretending to not understand what I said? Lame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know what repent means in the context of Christianity?
Click to expand...

It means that you're about to get charred if you don't apologize.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> reading your way to the Everlasting ... good luck.
> 
> 
> the "it" you rely on was canonized ~ 395 AD having nothing to do with the event and is a political document vaguely disguised as a religion, readymade for people similar to themselves ... bing. * as proven over history since that time to the present.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> we are already aware of the direction your religion leads you ... your lack of repentance is disturbing and foreboding for the near future.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's obvious ...
> 
> 
> your political document disguised by religion was canonized 394 AD, to find the Almighty you will have to unbind your transgressions. you must seek forgiveness from your victims.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish you would be more clear about what you want me to repent about.  You should come right out and say it, brother.  Stop beating around the bush.
Click to expand...

.






[QUOTE="ding, post: 16002747, member: 59921"]I wish you would be more clear about what you want me to repent about. You should come right out and say it, brother. Stop _*beating*_ around the bush.[/QUOTE]


no one is "beating" around a bush but you, christian.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> no one is "beating" around a bush but you, christian.



You are like a broken record playing backwards.  You don't make any sense and you keep repeating it.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like me to repent for again?
> 
> 
> 
> For being a hater and an all around asshole for starters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe you are an all around asshole.  I'm sure you have some good with your life.  You at least generate CO2 for plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretending to not understand what I said? Lame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know what repent means in the context of Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means that you're about to get charred if you don't apologize.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you knew.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one is "beating" around a bush but you, christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are like a broken record playing backwards.  You don't make any sense and you keep repeating it.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> You are like a broken record playing backwards. You don't make any sense and you keep repeating it.




I'm not the one carrying on a dialog, christian. a simple admission by you of the past history of christianity is all it would have taken ... to deviate from the same path well worn by your kind in the past.

politics disguised in their religious dogma.

.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.



Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?



Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> For being a hater and an all around asshole for starters.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you are an all around asshole.  I'm sure you have some good with your life.  You at least generate CO2 for plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretending to not understand what I said? Lame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you even know what repent means in the context of Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means that you're about to get charred if you don't apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't think you knew.
Click to expand...

Christianity is about some magical person grabbing your balls and threatening to squeeze them if you don't obey him.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
Click to expand...

You want greedy? The Catholic church is the richest entity in the world and have their hand out every time you go to church.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
Click to expand...

I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
Click to expand...

You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
Click to expand...

That's because you are not objective and do not see the good religion is responsible for.

1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
o)    Religion serves to create traditions
p)    Religion brings order to our lives
q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
(1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
c)    Religion gave us America
d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
e)    Religion gave us incredible music
f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture 
g)    Christianity has spread democracy
h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
l)    Christians ended the cold war.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
Click to expand...

And you are blind to the evil that militant atheism is responsible for.  And you are blind to the signs which show that we were made to worship God.

*Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts*

To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:




Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1] 
See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence


*1.* Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)

*2.* Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)

*3.* Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)

*4.* Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)

*5.* Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)

*6.* Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism

*7.* Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)

*8.* Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)

*9.* Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)

*10.* Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)

*11.* Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you are not objective and do not see the good religion is responsible for.
> 
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
Click to expand...


So does the KKK. It bet you have more things in common.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are blind to the evil that militant atheism is responsible for.  And you are blind to the signs which show that we were made to worship God.
> 
> *Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts*
> 
> To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1]
> See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence
> 
> 
> *1.* Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)
> 
> *2.* Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)
> 
> *3.* Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)
> 
> *4.* Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)
> 
> *5.* Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)
> 
> *6.* Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism
> 
> *7.* Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)
> 
> *8.* Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)
> 
> *9.* Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)
> 
> *10.* Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)
> 
> *11.* Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)
Click to expand...

Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you are not objective and do not see the good religion is responsible for.
> 
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does the KKK. It bet you have more things in common.
Click to expand...

What can whites do to heal race relations?

What can whites do to heal race relations?

What can whites do to heal race relations?

What can whites do to heal race relations?

What can whites do to heal race relations?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you are not objective and do not see the good religion is responsible for.
> 
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does the KKK. It bet you have more things in common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
Click to expand...

I tried those links last time, they didn't bring me anywhere relevant either.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are blind to the evil that militant atheism is responsible for.  And you are blind to the signs which show that we were made to worship God.
> 
> *Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts*
> 
> To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1]
> See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence
> 
> 
> *1.* Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)
> 
> *2.* Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)
> 
> *3.* Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)
> 
> *4.* Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)
> 
> *5.* Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)
> 
> *6.* Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism
> 
> *7.* Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)
> 
> *8.* Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)
> 
> *9.* Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)
> 
> *10.* Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)
> 
> *11.* Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.
Click to expand...

Yep, and my life is much more rich and full because of it.  Did you know that Christian values have been scientifically proven to lead to happiness and success, while militant atheist's lack of values leads to mental health disorders?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are blind to the evil that militant atheism is responsible for.  And you are blind to the signs which show that we were made to worship God.
> 
> *Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts*
> 
> To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1]
> See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence
> 
> 
> *1.* Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)
> 
> *2.* Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)
> 
> *3.* Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)
> 
> *4.* Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)
> 
> *5.* Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)
> 
> *6.* Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism
> 
> *7.* Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)
> 
> *8.* Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)
> 
> *9.* Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)
> 
> *10.* Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)
> 
> *11.* Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and my life is much more rich and full because of it.  Did you know that Christian values have been scientifically proven to lead to happiness and success, while militant atheist's lack of values leads to mental health disorders?
Click to expand...

Good thing I'm neither then.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you are not objective and do not see the good religion is responsible for.
> 
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does the KKK. It bet you have more things in common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried those links last time, they didn't bring me anywhere relevant either.
Click to expand...

That's probably because the truth hurts.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are blind to the evil that militant atheism is responsible for.  And you are blind to the signs which show that we were made to worship God.
> 
> *Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts*
> 
> To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1]
> See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence
> 
> 
> *1.* Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)
> 
> *2.* Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)
> 
> *3.* Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)
> 
> *4.* Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)
> 
> *5.* Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)
> 
> *6.* Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism
> 
> *7.* Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)
> 
> *8.* Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)
> 
> *9.* Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)
> 
> *10.* Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)
> 
> *11.* Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and my life is much more rich and full because of it.  Did you know that Christian values have been scientifically proven to lead to happiness and success, while militant atheist's lack of values leads to mental health disorders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing I'm neither then.
Click to expand...

Then you are delusional too.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are not objective and do not see the good religion is responsible for.
> 
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does the KKK. It bet you have more things in common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> What can whites do to heal race relations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried those links last time, they didn't bring me anywhere relevant either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's probably because the truth hurts.
Click to expand...

The truth is, your links retort is an epic fail.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are blind to the evil that militant atheism is responsible for.  And you are blind to the signs which show that we were made to worship God.
> 
> *Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts*
> 
> To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1]
> See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence
> 
> 
> *1.* Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)
> 
> *2.* Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)
> 
> *3.* Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)
> 
> *4.* Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)
> 
> *5.* Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)
> 
> *6.* Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism
> 
> *7.* Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)
> 
> *8.* Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)
> 
> *9.* Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)
> 
> *10.* Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)
> 
> *11.* Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and my life is much more rich and full because of it.  Did you know that Christian values have been scientifically proven to lead to happiness and success, while militant atheist's lack of values leads to mental health disorders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing I'm neither then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are delusional too.
Click to expand...

Prove it.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are blind to the evil that militant atheism is responsible for.  And you are blind to the signs which show that we were made to worship God.
> 
> *Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts*
> 
> To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1]
> See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence
> 
> 
> *1.* Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)
> 
> *2.* Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)
> 
> *3.* Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)
> 
> *4.* Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)
> 
> *5.* Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)
> 
> *6.* Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism
> 
> *7.* Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)
> 
> *8.* Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)
> 
> *9.* Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)
> 
> *10.* Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)
> 
> *11.* Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)
> 
> 
> 
> Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and my life is much more rich and full because of it.  Did you know that Christian values have been scientifically proven to lead to happiness and success, while militant atheist's lack of values leads to mental health disorders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing I'm neither then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are delusional too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

Your picture was next to their definition. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			










Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.  Recently the term _militant atheist_ has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]


Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber (2000). _The Fatima Secret_. Random House Digital, Inc.. Retrieved on 9 October 2011. “Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread atheism and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.”
Jump up↑ Paul D. Steeves (1989). _Keeping the faiths: religion and ideology in the Soviet Union_. Holmes & Meier. Retrieved on 4 July 2013. “The League of Militant Atheists was formed in 1926 and by 1930 had recruited three million members. Five years later there were 50,000 local groups affiliated to the League and the nominal membership had risen to five million. Children from 8-14 years of age were enrolled in Groups of Godless Youth, and the League of Communist Youth (Komsomol) took a vigorous anti- religious line. Several antireligious museums were opened in former churches and a number of Chairs of Atheism were established in Soviet universities. Prizes were offered for the best 'Godless hymns' and for alternative versions of the Bible from which ... the leader of the League of Militant Atheists, Yemelian Yaroslavsky, said: "When a priest is deprived of his congregation, that does not mean that he stops being a priest. He changes into an itinerant priest. He travels around with his primitive tools in the villages, performs religious rites, reads prayers, baptizes children. Such wandering priests are at times more dangerous than those who carry on their work at a designated place of residence." The intensified persecution, which was a part of the general terror inflicted upon Soviet society by Stalin's policy, ...”
Jump up↑ Multiple references:Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.” Karl Rahner (1975). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of_ any_ possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Phil Zuckerman (2009). _Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions_. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.”  

Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China". _Sociology of Religion_ *65* (2): 101–119. Sign In. "Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.". 

Yang, Fenggang (2006). "The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China". _The Sociological Quarterly_*47* (1): 93–122. http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Yang3Markets.pdf. "In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientiﬁc atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of “proletarian dictatorship” was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)".
Jump up↑ Multiple references:Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.”  

Charles Colson, Ellen Santilli Vaughn (2007). _God and Government_. Zondervan. Retrieved on 21 July 2011. “But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."”
Jump up↑ Multiple references:Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.”
Jump up↑ Multiple references:Harold Joseph Berman (1993). _Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion_. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an _atheocratic state_.” J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). _Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives_. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.”
↑ Jump up to:7.0 7.1 Alister E. McGrath. _The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World_. Random House. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.”
Jump up↑ Multiple references:Gerhard Simon (1974). _Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R._. University of California Press. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.” Simon Richmond (2006). _Russia & Belarus_. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.”
↑ Jump up to:9.0 9.1 9.2 _The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics)_. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.”
Jump up↑ Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). _Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion_. University of California Press. Retrieved on 16 July 2011. “The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
↑ Jump up to:11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”
Jump up↑ Multiple references:
Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”
Amarnath Amarasingam. _Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1)_. Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.” Stephen Prothero. _God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter_. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and my life is much more rich and full because of it.  Did you know that Christian values have been scientifically proven to lead to happiness and success, while militant atheist's lack of values leads to mental health disorders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing I'm neither then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are delusional too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your picture was next to their definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.  Recently the term _militant atheist_ has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]
> 
> 
> Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber (2000). _The Fatima Secret_. Random House Digital, Inc.. Retrieved on 9 October 2011. “Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread atheism and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.”
> Jump up↑ Paul D. Steeves (1989). _Keeping the faiths: religion and ideology in the Soviet Union_. Holmes & Meier. Retrieved on 4 July 2013. “The League of Militant Atheists was formed in 1926 and by 1930 had recruited three million members. Five years later there were 50,000 local groups affiliated to the League and the nominal membership had risen to five million. Children from 8-14 years of age were enrolled in Groups of Godless Youth, and the League of Communist Youth (Komsomol) took a vigorous anti- religious line. Several antireligious museums were opened in former churches and a number of Chairs of Atheism were established in Soviet universities. Prizes were offered for the best 'Godless hymns' and for alternative versions of the Bible from which ... the leader of the League of Militant Atheists, Yemelian Yaroslavsky, said: "When a priest is deprived of his congregation, that does not mean that he stops being a priest. He changes into an itinerant priest. He travels around with his primitive tools in the villages, performs religious rites, reads prayers, baptizes children. Such wandering priests are at times more dangerous than those who carry on their work at a designated place of residence." The intensified persecution, which was a part of the general terror inflicted upon Soviet society by Stalin's policy, ...”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.” Karl Rahner (1975). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of_ any_ possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Phil Zuckerman (2009). _Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions_. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.”
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China". _Sociology of Religion_ *65* (2): 101–119. Sign In. "Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.".
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2006). "The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China". _The Sociological Quarterly_*47* (1): 93–122. http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Yang3Markets.pdf. "In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientiﬁc atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of “proletarian dictatorship” was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)".
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.”
> 
> Charles Colson, Ellen Santilli Vaughn (2007). _God and Government_. Zondervan. Retrieved on 21 July 2011. “But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Harold Joseph Berman (1993). _Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion_. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an _atheocratic state_.” J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). _Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives_. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.”
> ↑ Jump up to:7.0 7.1 Alister E. McGrath. _The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World_. Random House. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Gerhard Simon (1974). _Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R._. University of California Press. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.” Simon Richmond (2006). _Russia & Belarus_. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.”
> ↑ Jump up to:9.0 9.1 9.2 _The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics)_. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.”
> Jump up↑ Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). _Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion_. University of California Press. Retrieved on 16 July 2011. “The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
> ↑ Jump up to:11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:
> Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”
> Amarnath Amarasingam. _Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1)_. Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.” Stephen Prothero. _God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter_. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”
Click to expand...

You have nothing. Thanks for playing.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and my life is much more rich and full because of it.  Did you know that Christian values have been scientifically proven to lead to happiness and success, while militant atheist's lack of values leads to mental health disorders?
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I'm neither then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are delusional too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your picture was next to their definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.  Recently the term _militant atheist_ has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]
> 
> 
> Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber (2000). _The Fatima Secret_. Random House Digital, Inc.. Retrieved on 9 October 2011. “Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread atheism and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.”
> Jump up↑ Paul D. Steeves (1989). _Keeping the faiths: religion and ideology in the Soviet Union_. Holmes & Meier. Retrieved on 4 July 2013. “The League of Militant Atheists was formed in 1926 and by 1930 had recruited three million members. Five years later there were 50,000 local groups affiliated to the League and the nominal membership had risen to five million. Children from 8-14 years of age were enrolled in Groups of Godless Youth, and the League of Communist Youth (Komsomol) took a vigorous anti- religious line. Several antireligious museums were opened in former churches and a number of Chairs of Atheism were established in Soviet universities. Prizes were offered for the best 'Godless hymns' and for alternative versions of the Bible from which ... the leader of the League of Militant Atheists, Yemelian Yaroslavsky, said: "When a priest is deprived of his congregation, that does not mean that he stops being a priest. He changes into an itinerant priest. He travels around with his primitive tools in the villages, performs religious rites, reads prayers, baptizes children. Such wandering priests are at times more dangerous than those who carry on their work at a designated place of residence." The intensified persecution, which was a part of the general terror inflicted upon Soviet society by Stalin's policy, ...”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.” Karl Rahner (1975). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of_ any_ possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Phil Zuckerman (2009). _Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions_. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.”
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China". _Sociology of Religion_ *65* (2): 101–119. Sign In. "Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.".
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2006). "The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China". _The Sociological Quarterly_*47* (1): 93–122. http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Yang3Markets.pdf. "In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientiﬁc atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of “proletarian dictatorship” was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)".
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.”
> 
> Charles Colson, Ellen Santilli Vaughn (2007). _God and Government_. Zondervan. Retrieved on 21 July 2011. “But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Harold Joseph Berman (1993). _Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion_. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an _atheocratic state_.” J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). _Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives_. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.”
> ↑ Jump up to:7.0 7.1 Alister E. McGrath. _The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World_. Random House. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Gerhard Simon (1974). _Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R._. University of California Press. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.” Simon Richmond (2006). _Russia & Belarus_. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.”
> ↑ Jump up to:9.0 9.1 9.2 _The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics)_. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.”
> Jump up↑ Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). _Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion_. University of California Press. Retrieved on 16 July 2011. “The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
> ↑ Jump up to:11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:
> Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”
> Amarnath Amarasingam. _Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1)_. Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.” Stephen Prothero. _God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter_. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

I have everything.  You are batshit crazy.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I'm neither then.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are delusional too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your picture was next to their definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.  Recently the term _militant atheist_ has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]
> 
> 
> Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber (2000). _The Fatima Secret_. Random House Digital, Inc.. Retrieved on 9 October 2011. “Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread atheism and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.”
> Jump up↑ Paul D. Steeves (1989). _Keeping the faiths: religion and ideology in the Soviet Union_. Holmes & Meier. Retrieved on 4 July 2013. “The League of Militant Atheists was formed in 1926 and by 1930 had recruited three million members. Five years later there were 50,000 local groups affiliated to the League and the nominal membership had risen to five million. Children from 8-14 years of age were enrolled in Groups of Godless Youth, and the League of Communist Youth (Komsomol) took a vigorous anti- religious line. Several antireligious museums were opened in former churches and a number of Chairs of Atheism were established in Soviet universities. Prizes were offered for the best 'Godless hymns' and for alternative versions of the Bible from which ... the leader of the League of Militant Atheists, Yemelian Yaroslavsky, said: "When a priest is deprived of his congregation, that does not mean that he stops being a priest. He changes into an itinerant priest. He travels around with his primitive tools in the villages, performs religious rites, reads prayers, baptizes children. Such wandering priests are at times more dangerous than those who carry on their work at a designated place of residence." The intensified persecution, which was a part of the general terror inflicted upon Soviet society by Stalin's policy, ...”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.” Karl Rahner (1975). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of_ any_ possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Phil Zuckerman (2009). _Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions_. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.”
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China". _Sociology of Religion_ *65* (2): 101–119. Sign In. "Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.".
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2006). "The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China". _The Sociological Quarterly_*47* (1): 93–122. http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Yang3Markets.pdf. "In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientiﬁc atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of “proletarian dictatorship” was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)".
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.”
> 
> Charles Colson, Ellen Santilli Vaughn (2007). _God and Government_. Zondervan. Retrieved on 21 July 2011. “But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Harold Joseph Berman (1993). _Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion_. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an _atheocratic state_.” J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). _Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives_. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.”
> ↑ Jump up to:7.0 7.1 Alister E. McGrath. _The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World_. Random House. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Gerhard Simon (1974). _Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R._. University of California Press. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.” Simon Richmond (2006). _Russia & Belarus_. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.”
> ↑ Jump up to:9.0 9.1 9.2 _The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics)_. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.”
> Jump up↑ Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). _Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion_. University of California Press. Retrieved on 16 July 2011. “The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
> ↑ Jump up to:11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:
> Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”
> Amarnath Amarasingam. _Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1)_. Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.” Stephen Prothero. _God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter_. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have everything.  You are batshit crazy.
Click to expand...

Can't be crazy, I'm agnostic. Even you agreed to that.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are delusional too.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your picture was next to their definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.  Recently the term _militant atheist_ has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]
> 
> 
> Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber (2000). _The Fatima Secret_. Random House Digital, Inc.. Retrieved on 9 October 2011. “Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread atheism and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.”
> Jump up↑ Paul D. Steeves (1989). _Keeping the faiths: religion and ideology in the Soviet Union_. Holmes & Meier. Retrieved on 4 July 2013. “The League of Militant Atheists was formed in 1926 and by 1930 had recruited three million members. Five years later there were 50,000 local groups affiliated to the League and the nominal membership had risen to five million. Children from 8-14 years of age were enrolled in Groups of Godless Youth, and the League of Communist Youth (Komsomol) took a vigorous anti- religious line. Several antireligious museums were opened in former churches and a number of Chairs of Atheism were established in Soviet universities. Prizes were offered for the best 'Godless hymns' and for alternative versions of the Bible from which ... the leader of the League of Militant Atheists, Yemelian Yaroslavsky, said: "When a priest is deprived of his congregation, that does not mean that he stops being a priest. He changes into an itinerant priest. He travels around with his primitive tools in the villages, performs religious rites, reads prayers, baptizes children. Such wandering priests are at times more dangerous than those who carry on their work at a designated place of residence." The intensified persecution, which was a part of the general terror inflicted upon Soviet society by Stalin's policy, ...”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.” Karl Rahner (1975). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of_ any_ possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Phil Zuckerman (2009). _Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions_. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.”
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China". _Sociology of Religion_ *65* (2): 101–119. Sign In. "Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.".
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2006). "The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China". _The Sociological Quarterly_*47* (1): 93–122. http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Yang3Markets.pdf. "In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientiﬁc atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of “proletarian dictatorship” was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)".
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.”
> 
> Charles Colson, Ellen Santilli Vaughn (2007). _God and Government_. Zondervan. Retrieved on 21 July 2011. “But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Harold Joseph Berman (1993). _Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion_. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an _atheocratic state_.” J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). _Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives_. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.”
> ↑ Jump up to:7.0 7.1 Alister E. McGrath. _The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World_. Random House. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Gerhard Simon (1974). _Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R._. University of California Press. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.” Simon Richmond (2006). _Russia & Belarus_. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.”
> ↑ Jump up to:9.0 9.1 9.2 _The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics)_. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.”
> Jump up↑ Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). _Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion_. University of California Press. Retrieved on 16 July 2011. “The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
> ↑ Jump up to:11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:
> Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”
> Amarnath Amarasingam. _Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1)_. Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.” Stephen Prothero. _God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter_. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have everything.  You are batshit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be crazy, I'm agnostic. Even you agreed to that.
Click to expand...

I believe you are 100% crazy if you are deluding yourself that you are not a militant atheist.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your picture was next to their definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.  Recently the term _militant atheist_ has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]
> 
> 
> Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber (2000). _The Fatima Secret_. Random House Digital, Inc.. Retrieved on 9 October 2011. “Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread atheism and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.”
> Jump up↑ Paul D. Steeves (1989). _Keeping the faiths: religion and ideology in the Soviet Union_. Holmes & Meier. Retrieved on 4 July 2013. “The League of Militant Atheists was formed in 1926 and by 1930 had recruited three million members. Five years later there were 50,000 local groups affiliated to the League and the nominal membership had risen to five million. Children from 8-14 years of age were enrolled in Groups of Godless Youth, and the League of Communist Youth (Komsomol) took a vigorous anti- religious line. Several antireligious museums were opened in former churches and a number of Chairs of Atheism were established in Soviet universities. Prizes were offered for the best 'Godless hymns' and for alternative versions of the Bible from which ... the leader of the League of Militant Atheists, Yemelian Yaroslavsky, said: "When a priest is deprived of his congregation, that does not mean that he stops being a priest. He changes into an itinerant priest. He travels around with his primitive tools in the villages, performs religious rites, reads prayers, baptizes children. Such wandering priests are at times more dangerous than those who carry on their work at a designated place of residence." The intensified persecution, which was a part of the general terror inflicted upon Soviet society by Stalin's policy, ...”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.” Karl Rahner (1975). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of_ any_ possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Phil Zuckerman (2009). _Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions_. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.”
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China". _Sociology of Religion_ *65* (2): 101–119. Sign In. "Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.".
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2006). "The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China". _The Sociological Quarterly_*47* (1): 93–122. http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Yang3Markets.pdf. "In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientiﬁc atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of “proletarian dictatorship” was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)".
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.”
> 
> Charles Colson, Ellen Santilli Vaughn (2007). _God and Government_. Zondervan. Retrieved on 21 July 2011. “But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Harold Joseph Berman (1993). _Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion_. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an _atheocratic state_.” J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). _Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives_. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.”
> ↑ Jump up to:7.0 7.1 Alister E. McGrath. _The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World_. Random House. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Gerhard Simon (1974). _Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R._. University of California Press. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.” Simon Richmond (2006). _Russia & Belarus_. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.”
> ↑ Jump up to:9.0 9.1 9.2 _The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics)_. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.”
> Jump up↑ Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). _Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion_. University of California Press. Retrieved on 16 July 2011. “The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
> ↑ Jump up to:11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:
> Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”
> Amarnath Amarasingam. _Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1)_. Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.” Stephen Prothero. _God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter_. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have everything.  You are batshit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be crazy, I'm agnostic. Even you agreed to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you are 100% crazy if you are deluding yourself that you are not a militant atheist.
Click to expand...

You're crazy if you think that I give a shit what you think.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your picture was next to their definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.  Recently the term _militant atheist_ has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]
> 
> 
> Michael Hesemann, Whitley Strieber (2000). _The Fatima Secret_. Random House Digital, Inc.. Retrieved on 9 October 2011. “Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by the rise of Joseph Stalin, "the man of steel," who founded the "Union of Militant Atheists," whose chief aim was to spread atheism and eradicate religion. In the following years it devastated hundreds of churches, destroyed old icons and relics, and persecuted the clergy with unimaginable brutality.”
> Jump up↑ Paul D. Steeves (1989). _Keeping the faiths: religion and ideology in the Soviet Union_. Holmes & Meier. Retrieved on 4 July 2013. “The League of Militant Atheists was formed in 1926 and by 1930 had recruited three million members. Five years later there were 50,000 local groups affiliated to the League and the nominal membership had risen to five million. Children from 8-14 years of age were enrolled in Groups of Godless Youth, and the League of Communist Youth (Komsomol) took a vigorous anti- religious line. Several antireligious museums were opened in former churches and a number of Chairs of Atheism were established in Soviet universities. Prizes were offered for the best 'Godless hymns' and for alternative versions of the Bible from which ... the leader of the League of Militant Atheists, Yemelian Yaroslavsky, said: "When a priest is deprived of his congregation, that does not mean that he stops being a priest. He changes into an itinerant priest. He travels around with his primitive tools in the villages, performs religious rites, reads prayers, baptizes children. Such wandering priests are at times more dangerous than those who carry on their work at a designated place of residence." The intensified persecution, which was a part of the general terror inflicted upon Soviet society by Stalin's policy, ...”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.” Karl Rahner (1975). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of_ any_ possibility of knowing God. In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Phil Zuckerman (2009). _Atheism and Secularity: Issues, Concepts, and Definitions_. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as the dangerous opium and narcotic of the people, a wrong political ideology serving the interests of antirevolutionary forces; thus force may be necessary to control or eliminate religion.”
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2004). "Between Secularist Ideology and Desecularizing Reality: The Birth and Growth of Religious Research in Communist China". _Sociology of Religion_ *65* (2): 101–119. Sign In. "Scientific atheism is the theoretical basis for tolerating religion while carrying out atheist propaganda, whereas militant atheism leads to antireligious measures. In practice, almost as soon as it took power in 1949, the CCP followed the hard line of militant atheism. Within a decade, all religions were brought under the iron control of the Party: Folk religious practices considered feudalist superstitions were vigorously suppressed; cultic or heterodox sects regarded as reactionary organizations were resolutely banned; foreign missionaries, considered part of Western imperialism, were expelled; and major world religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, were coerced into "patriotic" national associations under close supervision of the Party. Religious believers who dared to challenge these policies were mercilessly banished to labor camps, jails, or execution grounds.".
> 
> Yang, Fenggang (2006). "The Red, Black, and Gray Markets of Religion in China". _The Sociological Quarterly_*47* (1): 93–122. http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Yang3Markets.pdf. "In contrast, militant atheism, as advocated by Lenin and the Russian Bolsheviks, treats religion as a dangerous narcotic and a troubling political ideology that serves the interests of antirevolutionary forces. As such, it should be suppressed or eliminated by the revolutionary force. On the basis of scientiﬁc atheism, religious toleration was inscribed in CCP policy since its early days. By reason of militant atheism, however, atheist propaganda became ferocious, and the power of “proletarian dictatorship” was invoked to eradicate the reactionary ideology (Dai 2001)".
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.”
> 
> Charles Colson, Ellen Santilli Vaughn (2007). _God and Government_. Zondervan. Retrieved on 21 July 2011. “But Nietzsche's atheism was the most radical the world had yet seen. While the old atheism had acknowledged the need for religion, the new atheism was political activist, and jealous. One scholar observed that "atheism has become militant . . . inisisting it must be believed. Atheism has felt the need to impose its views, to forbid competing versions."”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Kerry S. Walters (2010). _Atheism_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “Both positive and negative atheism may be further subdivided into (i) militant and (ii) moderate varieties. Militant atheists, such as physicist Steven Weinberg, tend to think that God-belief is not only erroneous but pernicious. Moderate atheists agree that God-belief is unjustifiable, but see nothing inherently pernicious in it. What leads to excess, they argue, is intolerant dogmatism and extremism, and these are qualities of ideologies in general, religious or nonreligious.” Karl Rahner (28 December 2004). _Encyclopædia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi_. Continuum International Publishing Group. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “*ATHEISM* *A. IN PHILOSOPHY* I. _Concept and incidence_. Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism). In those who hold this theoretical atheism, it may be tolerant (and even deeply concerned), if it has no missionary aims; it is "militant" when it regards itself as a doctrine to be propagated for the happiness of mankind and combats every religion as a harmful aberration.” Julian Baggini (2009). _Atheism_. Sterling Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-06-28. “Militant Atheism: Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that is is usually or always harmful.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Harold Joseph Berman (1993). _Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion_. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “One fundamental element of that system was its propagation of a doctrine called Marxism-Leninism, and one fundamental element of that doctrine was militant atheism. Until only a little over three years ago, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church in what might be called an _atheocratic state_.” J. D. Van der Vyver, John Witte (1996). _Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives_. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “For seventy years, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the closing years of the Gorbachev regime, militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union, and the Communist Party was, in effect, the established church. It was an avowed task of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, to root out from the minds and hearts of the Soviet state, all belief systems other than Marxism-Leninism.”
> ↑ Jump up to:7.0 7.1 Alister E. McGrath. _The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World_. Random House. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “So was the French Revolution fundamentally atheist? There is no doubt that such a view is to be found in much Christian and atheist literature on the movement. Cloots was at the forefront of the dechristianization movement that gathered around the militant atheist Jacques Hébert. He "debaptised" himself, setting aside his original name of Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce. For Cloots, religion was simply not to be tolerated.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:Gerhard Simon (1974). _Church, State, and Opposition in the U.S.S.R._. University of California Press. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “On the other hand the Communist Party has never made any secret of the fact, either before or after 1917, that it regards 'militant atheism' as an integral part of its ideology and will regard 'religion as by no means a private matter'. It therefore uses 'the means of ideological influence to educate people in the spirit of scientific materialism and to overcome religious prejudices..' Thus it is the goal of the C.P.S.U. and thereby also of the Soviet state, for which it is after all the 'guiding cell', gradually to liquidate the religious communities.” Simon Richmond (2006). _Russia & Belarus_. BBC Worldwide. Retrieved on 2011-07-09. “Soviet 'militant atheism' led to the closure and destruction of nearly all the mosques and madrasahs (Muslim religious schools) in Russia, although some remained in the Central Asian states. Under Stalin there were mass deportations and liquidation of the Muslim elite.”
> ↑ Jump up to:9.0 9.1 9.2 _The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion and Politics)_. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2011-03-05. “Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.”
> Jump up↑ Rodney Stark; Roger Finke (2000). _Acts of Faith: explaining the human side of religion_. University of California Press. Retrieved on 16 July 2011. “The militant atheism of the early social scientists was motivated partly by politics. As Jeffrey Hadden reminds us, the social sciences emerged as part of a new political "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
> ↑ Jump up to:11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”
> Jump up↑ Multiple references:
> Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”
> Amarnath Amarasingam. _Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1)_. Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.” Stephen Prothero. _God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter_. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have everything.  You are batshit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be crazy, I'm agnostic. Even you agreed to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you are 100% crazy if you are deluding yourself that you are not a militant atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're crazy if you think that I give a shit what you think.
Click to expand...

I know you do.  That's why you follow me around like a little bitch in heat all of the time.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything.  You are batshit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be crazy, I'm agnostic. Even you agreed to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you are 100% crazy if you are deluding yourself that you are not a militant atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're crazy if you think that I give a shit what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you do.  That's why you follow me around like a little bitch in heat all of the time.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who keeps copying my emoticons.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mudda said:


> Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.







We all need God or we wouldn't exist.

God doesn't tell me what to do because I have free will.

It seems you're the one who's desperate to reaffirm some cockamamie story that you believe in otherwise you'd address the question posed in the OP.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have everything.  You are batshit crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be crazy, I'm agnostic. Even you agreed to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you are 100% crazy if you are deluding yourself that you are not a militant atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're crazy if you think that I give a shit what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you do.  That's why you follow me around like a little bitch in heat all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who keeps copying my emoticons.
Click to expand...

Sure, I copy your emoticons.  So what?  You follow me around like a bitch in heat.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be crazy, I'm agnostic. Even you agreed to that.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are 100% crazy if you are deluding yourself that you are not a militant atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're crazy if you think that I give a shit what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you do.  That's why you follow me around like a little bitch in heat all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who keeps copying my emoticons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I copy your emoticons.  So what?  You follow me around like a bitch in heat.
Click to expand...

I forgot, you need someone to show you what to do.


----------



## GaryDog

Damaged Eagle said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 101224
> 
> We all need God or we wouldn't exist.
> 
> God doesn't tell me what to do because I have free will.
> 
> It seems you're the one who's desperate to reaffirm some cockamamie story that you believe in otherwise you'd address the question posed in the OP.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Are you trying to be self-effacing with that pied piper silhouette?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

GaryDog said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the weak need god. You're so desperate to have someone tell you how to live your life that you'll believe any old cockamamee story, your beliefs are proof of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 101224
> 
> We all need God or we wouldn't exist.
> 
> God doesn't tell me what to do because I have free will.
> 
> It seems you're the one who's desperate to reaffirm some cockamamie story that you believe in otherwise you'd address the question posed in the OP.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be self-effacing with that pied piper silhouette?
Click to expand...






I'm always self-effacing... aren't I?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are 100% crazy if you are deluding yourself that you are not a militant atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> You're crazy if you think that I give a shit what you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you do.  That's why you follow me around like a little bitch in heat all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who keeps copying my emoticons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I copy your emoticons.  So what?  You follow me around like a bitch in heat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgot, you need someone to show you what to do.
Click to expand...

That is almost as ridiculous as you saying you are agnostic.  Almost.


----------



## RWS

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to accuse you of wanting to criminalise religion, next, Mudda.  Wait for it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I will ask him if he wants to criminalize religion next.  I may walk him through the logical conclusion of his beliefs like I did you and then you amended your position because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semantics.  No you didn't.  I started with the position that I have no desire, nor need, to criminalise religion.  And I ended with the position that I have no desire, nor need to criminalise religion.  You changed nothing with your irrational paranoia of what my position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You started from the position that there was no baby in the bathwater, just dirty warter.  As I progressed you through your logic you amended your position to that of religion has influenced man for some good - albeit a very half-assed analysis - which revealed your lack of objectivity on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is still only dirty water.  Guess what?  Even dirty water removes mud from the body.  The lacking "baby" is your invisible magic skyman.  what little "good" is accomplished by your religion can be accomplished just as effectively by simply doing away with outdated myths altogether.  Sill no change from my original position.  Like I said, you *think* you have accomplished something that you never did.  I never said that relgion hasn't had a modicum of positive influence.  Only that the negative influences make the positive not worth the cost.
> 
> Take the paedophile priest.  If that priest is an excellent marriage counsellor, and helps a few couples avoid divorce, is that minor positive influence really worth all of the damage that he does diddling children?  I think not.
Click to expand...



Religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time.

Christianity, as an example, committed mass genocide, wiping out the dads across a region. And when the moms and kids were starving, they came in and offered food and assistance and husbandly comfort, as long as they became Christian. If not, they were ignored and left to die, or burned.

So when you focus on a specific example, like Christians coming in to offer food and aid to women and children, you totally miss the big picture. Which is that they created that environment, and if the people still refuse to follow, they will become slaves, tortured, and/or burned as witches/faggots. Google the true meaning of that word for a sense of reality.


----------



## RWS

Everything that is "positive" that Christianity or any other religion has done, was not because of the "goodness" of the religion. They only did "negatives". 

Positives are done by individuals who truly care, and may or may not be caught up in the whirlwind of fantasy. 

People with faith are usually good, they have the right sense of what is needed to be good and co-exist. But the TRULY religious ones? That devote themselves to plagiarized books and snake-oil salesmen and ignore reality and don't care about anything or anybody outside their box??

Trump needs to make a law about those people...


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, shuttling pedophiles around... That type of thing?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, now what good has religion done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Made people feel better by telling them fairy tales?
> The rejection of science?
> Making women second class citizens?
> Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lack of objectivity is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1)    Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness
> a)    Religion creates wonderful charities and organizations
> b)    Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions
> c)    Religion has been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with                  no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing
> d)    Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity
> e)    Religion has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> f)    Religion teaches accountability and responsibility
> g)    Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave
> h)    Religion teaches that actions have consequences
> i)    Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe
> j)    Religion helps us feel connected to one another and to nature
> k)    Religion helps us feel less alone in the world
> l)    Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit
> m)    Religion serves to bind the community together
> n)    Religion inspires love, peace and happiness
> o)    Religion serves to create traditions
> p)    Religion brings order to our lives
> q)    Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill
> r)    Religion can act as a source of hope for the oppressed
> s)    Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves
> 2)    Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.
> a)    No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church
> i)    Modern science was born in the Catholic Church
> ii)    Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market
> iii)    The Catholic Church invented the university
> iv)    Western law grew out of Church canon law
> v)    the Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life
> (1)    The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the                             infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
> b)    Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians
> c)    Religion gave us America
> d)    Religion gave us incredible artwork
> e)    Religion gave us incredible music
> f)    Religion gave us incredible architecture
> g)    Christianity has spread democracy
> h)    Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression.
> i)    Christians rebuilt Europe after WWII
> j)    Christians rebuilt Japan after WWII
> k)    Christians put a man on the moon.
> l)    Christians ended the cold war.
Click to expand...


Every single one of your statements are factually wrong, and full of your brainwashed fallacy.

Many of them are actually the complete opposite of reality, and the others kind of make me sick that you actually believe them...

Talk about a religious barf.... Wow dude...

That was terrible! But it was a nice tactic to get people to post about other stuff than things you are uncomfortable with!

It's going to lead to about another 200 pages of people arguing each line item, and ignoring the truths that have been said here.

So nice job dickhole, getting observers to overlook the truth. Let's hope we ignore that, and keep moving forward with truth and reality.


----------



## peach174

RWS said:


> Everything that is "positive" that Christianity or any other religion has done, was not because of the "goodness" of the religion. They only did "negatives".
> 
> Positives are done by individuals who truly care, and may or may not be caught up in the whirlwind of fantasy.
> 
> People with faith are usually good, they have the right sense of what is needed to be good and co-exist. But the TRULY religious ones? That devote themselves to plagiarized books and snake-oil salesmen and ignore reality and don't care about anything or anybody outside their box??
> 
> Trump needs to make a law about those people...




Good luck with that idea.
You'd have to repeal the 1st amendment.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're crazy if you think that I give a shit what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you do.  That's why you follow me around like a little bitch in heat all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who keeps copying my emoticons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I copy your emoticons.  So what?  You follow me around like a bitch in heat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgot, you need someone to show you what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is almost as ridiculous as you saying you are agnostic.  Almost.
Click to expand...

It's on your list, you need fake invisible people to put order in your life.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you do.  That's why you follow me around like a little bitch in heat all of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who keeps copying my emoticons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I copy your emoticons.  So what?  You follow me around like a bitch in heat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgot, you need someone to show you what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is almost as ridiculous as you saying you are agnostic.  Almost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's on your list, you need fake invisible people to put order in your life.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it ain't YOU.  YOU are too busy following me around like a little bitch in heat.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to accuse you of wanting to criminalise religion, next, Mudda.  Wait for it...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I will ask him if he wants to criminalize religion next.  I may walk him through the logical conclusion of his beliefs like I did you and then you amended your position because of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semantics.  No you didn't.  I started with the position that I have no desire, nor need, to criminalise religion.  And I ended with the position that I have no desire, nor need to criminalise religion.  You changed nothing with your irrational paranoia of what my position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You started from the position that there was no baby in the bathwater, just dirty warter.  As I progressed you through your logic you amended your position to that of religion has influenced man for some good - albeit a very half-assed analysis - which revealed your lack of objectivity on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is still only dirty water.  Guess what?  Even dirty water removes mud from the body.  The lacking "baby" is your invisible magic skyman.  what little "good" is accomplished by your religion can be accomplished just as effectively by simply doing away with outdated myths altogether.  Sill no change from my original position.  Like I said, you *think* you have accomplished something that you never did.  I never said that relgion hasn't had a modicum of positive influence.  Only that the negative influences make the positive not worth the cost.
> 
> Take the paedophile priest.  If that priest is an excellent marriage counsellor, and helps a few couples avoid divorce, is that minor positive influence really worth all of the damage that he does diddling children?  I think not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time.
> 
> Christianity, as an example, committed mass genocide, wiping out the dads across a region. And when the moms and kids were starving, they came in and offered food and assistance and husbandly comfort, as long as they became Christian. If not, they were ignored and left to die, or burned.
> 
> So when you focus on a specific example, like Christians coming in to offer food and aid to women and children, you totally miss the big picture. Which is that they created that environment, and if the people still refuse to follow, they will become slaves, tortured, and/or burned as witches/faggots. Google the true meaning of that word for a sense of reality.
Click to expand...

Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?


It's like a cancer, takes time.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point, british boy.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
Click to expand...

What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
Click to expand...

If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...

You're on tilt again, how cute.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
Click to expand...

Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on tilt again, how cute.
Click to expand...

Is that more of your British logic?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
Click to expand...

So why did your god make all the bad things? Earth would be better without them.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're on tilt again, how cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that more of your British logic?
Click to expand...

At least you're consistent. Consistently wrong.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
Click to expand...

I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.

So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.
> 
> So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?
Click to expand...

I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.
> 
> So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
Click to expand...

Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
chritianity is a political orientation for a religion that circumvents its focus of an actual creator the Almighty for its own purposes and control over society and is the reason for its history of oppression.

.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.
> 
> So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
Click to expand...

And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.
> 
> So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
Click to expand...

So,  the terrorist bombers are tools of God?  Good to know. I'll add that to list of your God's crimes... 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.
> 
> So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
Click to expand...

So you admit that you're a tool. Good for you.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
> 
> 
> 
> I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.
> 
> So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So,  the terrorist bombers are tools of God?  Good to know. I'll add that to list of your God's crimes...
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If that is how you want to see it then sure.  Just don't forget to credit him for the good too.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
> 
> 
> 
> I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.
> 
> So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that you're a tool. Good for you.
Click to expand...

Just like you.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> .
> chritianity is a political orientation for a religion that circumvents its focus of an actual creator the Almighty for its own purposes and control over society and is the reason for its history of oppression.
> 
> .


You don't say.  Anything else?


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.
> 
> So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?
> 
> 
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So,  the terrorist bombers are tools of God?  Good to know. I'll add that to list of your God's crimes...
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that is how you want to see it then sure.  Just don't forget to credit him for the good too.
Click to expand...


That's how *you* see it: "People are the tools of God". Your own words.  Unless you only think that people are God's tools when they do things you can point to as good things.  I mean that seems kind of biased,  doesn't it? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## BreezeWood

.
some people try and contribute to a thread to reach a conclusion, the conclusion that christianity is a contrivance more for addicts, bing than a serious religion should allow for a more constructive discussion resolving the existence or necessity of an Almighty for the sake of sanctity for an individuals Spirit. and the possibility of a Spirit reaching the Everlasting with nothing there to great them - than other successful Spirits.

.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do, with the exception of War.  And I would say the same to you.  If you want to credit God with all of the good things that happen in life, you must also hold him responsible for all of the bad.  You wanna compare the two?  Bear in mind, I specifically said all of the things *God* did, and does, not anything that people do in the *name* of God.  So, all of those hospitals, charities, etc. don't count.  *God* isn't doing any of those things; *people* are.  That those people *think* they are being "directed by God", is irrelevant.  The people who strap on bombs, and blow shit up think they are being directed by God, too, and all of us - *Christian theists included* - think they are out of their fucking minds.  So, again, if you are going to credit your god with the positive things people do in his name, then you have to hold him responsible for the negative things they do in his name, as well.
> 
> So, I say again, shall we make a comparative list?
> 
> 
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that you're a tool. Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you.
Click to expand...

I'm nobody's tool, that's for sure.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So,  the terrorist bombers are tools of God?  Good to know. I'll add that to list of your God's crimes...
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that is how you want to see it then sure.  Just don't forget to credit him for the good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how *you* see it: "People are the tools of God". Your own words.  Unless you only think that people are God's tools when they do things you can point to as good things.  I mean that seems kind of biased,  doesn't it?
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's an oversimplification but sure.  Just make sure you give God the credit for the good too.  Ok?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that you're a tool. Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm nobody's tool, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

You are my tool.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> .
> some people try and contribute to a thread to reach a conclusion, the conclusion that christianity is a contrivance more for addicts, bing than a serious religion should allow for a more constructive discussion resolving the existence or necessity of an Almighty for the sake of sanctity for an individuals Spirit. and the possibility of a Spirit reaching the Everlasting with nothing there to great them - than other successful Spirits.
> 
> .


I see. Anything else?


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So,  the terrorist bombers are tools of God?  Good to know. I'll add that to list of your God's crimes...
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that is how you want to see it then sure.  Just don't forget to credit him for the good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how *you* see it: "People are the tools of God". Your own words.  Unless you only think that people are God's tools when they do things you can point to as good things.  I mean that seems kind of biased,  doesn't it?
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an oversimplification but sure.  Just make sure you give God the credit for the good too.  Ok?
Click to expand...

I have.  Unfortunately in the bad greatly outweighs the good.  When you compare all of the pain,  suffering,  and death inflicted on us by your God,  to what little benefit he has seen fit to dribble down,  the undeniable reality is that you serve an evil God who,  at best,  is negligent,  at worst enjoys inflicting pain. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do and I have.  The funny thing is that you don't believe in God and you only blame Him for the bad and give Him no credit for the good.
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So,  the terrorist bombers are tools of God?  Good to know. I'll add that to list of your God's crimes...
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that is how you want to see it then sure.  Just don't forget to credit him for the good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how *you* see it: "People are the tools of God". Your own words.  Unless you only think that people are God's tools when they do things you can point to as good things.  I mean that seems kind of biased,  doesn't it?
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Like I said it is an over simplification but it works for this purpose. Just make sure you weigh the good and the bad and you'll be ok.


----------



## Czernobog

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So,  the terrorist bombers are tools of God?  Good to know. I'll add that to list of your God's crimes...
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that is how you want to see it then sure.  Just don't forget to credit him for the good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how *you* see it: "People are the tools of God". Your own words.  Unless you only think that people are God's tools when they do things you can point to as good things.  I mean that seems kind of biased,  doesn't it?
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said it is an over simplification but it works for this purpose. Just make sure you weigh the good and the bad and you'll be ok.
Click to expand...


Read post #2346.


----------



## ding

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> 
> 
> So,  the terrorist bombers are tools of God?  Good to know. I'll add that to list of your God's crimes...
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that is how you want to see it then sure.  Just don't forget to credit him for the good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how *you* see it: "People are the tools of God". Your own words.  Unless you only think that people are God's tools when they do things you can point to as good things.  I mean that seems kind of biased,  doesn't it?
> 
> Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said it is an over simplification but it works for this purpose. Just make sure you weigh the good and the bad and you'll be ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read post #2346.
Click to expand...

That is because you are not objective and cannot see reality.  For instance, you totally overlook the 200 million people who were murdered by atheists in the 20th century.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?  And don't bother listing all that crap that "religion" promotes; religion is a tool of *people*.  I'm looking for a list of things that *God* does.  You know...healing the sick, making the blind see, preventing a fire from destroying an entire community.  Oh, and the Bible doesn't work, either.   Even if I believed the stories in the Bible - which I don't - at best that is your God resting on his laurels; the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes screaming to mind. List for me all of the *verifiable *things God has done.  "He helped me find my car keys", or "He cured my little sister's acne" doesn't count, as it is not verifiable.  It's easy to make up a bunch of personal anecdotes; looking for verifiable shit here.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that you're a tool. Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm nobody's tool, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are my tool.
Click to expand...

My gaydar just went off... again!


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people are a tool of God. No need to wait.
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that you're a tool. Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm nobody's tool, that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are my tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My gaydar just went off... again!
Click to expand...

Are you as homophobic as you are racist?

What can whites do to heal race relations?

What can whites do to heal race relations?

What can whites do to heal race relations?

What can whites do to heal race relations?

What can whites do to heal race relations?


----------



## BreezeWood

.


> If God doesn't exist










obviously certain areas haven't much of a thought for the subject or is that true in our own Garden where appearance is only skin deep ... or written text's worshiped by some when bared open prove similar to the nearness of an Almighty as the above moonscape.

it is those who read religion that in fact are the least religious. and prove by their actions the figment of their imagination.

.
.


----------



## RWS

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you believe that religion has never had a positive influence, when you look at it over time, and is only responsible for bad, wouldn't it make sense to abolish religion?
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
Click to expand...


Eventually truth will conquer lies, and these religions will fall by the wayside. I just hope it happens before it's too late, and they kill us all with their false hatred.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like a cancer, takes time.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
Click to expand...


There is no good that "god" created, fool. The "goods" you imagine are part of evolution and natural selection, which dictate that we should protect our own so we can live longer and make more kids...

But religion says that we should kill our own... and kids... and goes completely against the betterment of our society.

So the "goods" you are trying to attribute to your false belief, are not due to your false belief. Stop trying to say that your religion has created any benefit for humankind. Anything they built as monuments, were borne on the backs of slavery, torture, and genocide, and helped paid for by the tributes from the poor and helpless that your religion sucked in.

Speaking of "sucking", that brings me to pedophilia, and how that has been rampant in the Church. And allowed for over a thousand years.

This is what you think is the great "truth"?

I suggest you study a little bit...


----------



## RWS

And hopefully not in an enclosed area with a small boy...


----------



## RWS

Because here's another thing to consider...

God in your view is an omnipotent, all-knowing, benevolent Creator.

For Him to allow the atrocities and wickedness that has occurred in His Church without smiting anybody, and also for other monotheistic religions in His name, guilty of equal crimes, and which span thousands of years without godly punishment... means one of 4 options:

1. He doesn't know
2. He doesn't care
3. He doesn't exist
4. He is evil

Which option do you think is correct?

Let's take a vote...


----------



## hobelim

RWS said:


> For Him to allow the atrocities and wickedness that has occurred in His Church without smiting anybody, and also for other monotheistic religions in His name, guilty of equal crimes, and which span thousands of years without godly punishment... means one of 4 options:
> 
> 1. He doesn't know
> 2. He doesn't care
> 3. He doesn't exist
> 4. He is evil




Maybe those thousands of years insanity are merely the consequences, the natural result,  of people giving their minds over to superstitious archaic lore, irrational religious beliefs and degrading religious practices..


How could you blame that on God?

Seriously.

If you take your own children and instill in them a mental illness since birth by teaching them to believe in irrational nonsense how can you then turn around and blame God for the stupid things they might say or do in life?

Wouldn't it be your own fault?

















.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving my point, british boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? That your god gives people cancer? Good call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you want to believe, go for it.  I couldn't care less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that your God *didn't* create cancer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cancer is a disease and a part of the human condition.  If you would like to argue that God is responsible for cancer then don't stop there.  You can blame Him for everything else that you perceive as being bad such as war, famine, forest fires, etc.  But to be objective, you would also need to credit Him for everything that is good too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no good that "god" created, fool. The "goods" you imagine are part of evolution and natural selection, which dictate that we should protect our own so we can live longer and make more kids...
> 
> But religion says that we should kill our own... and kids... and goes completely against the betterment of our society.
> 
> So the "goods" you are trying to attribute to your false belief, are not due to your false belief. Stop trying to say that your religion has created any benefit for humankind. Anything they built as monuments, were borne on the backs of slavery, torture, and genocide, and helped paid for by the tributes from the poor and helpless that your religion sucked in.
> 
> Speaking of "sucking", that brings me to pedophilia, and how that has been rampant in the Church. And allowed for over a thousand years.
> 
> This is what you think is the great "truth"?
> 
> I suggest you study a little bit...
Click to expand...

Your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.  

It seems that you want to separate God from religion, whereas Czernobog wanted to separate religion from God.  I am afraid both are hopelessly intertwined and cannot be separated for the purpose of this discussion.  Man is hardwired to worship.  So whether he chooses to worship God or not, he will end up worshiping something.  Often times, himself.  Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.  Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.  Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.  Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.  Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility  Religion teaches accountability and responsibility.  Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences.  Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings.  Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together.  Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness.  Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility.      Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed.  Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves.  That it is possible to change for the better.  Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.  No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church.  Modern science was born in the Catholic Church.  Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market.  The Catholic Church invented the university.  Western law grew out of Church canon law.  The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life.  The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.  Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians.  Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture.  Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world.  Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII.  Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.

So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion  have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done.  Exactly what has atheism done?  Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want greedy? The Catholic church is the richest entity in the world and have their hand out every time you go to church.
Click to expand...


That is an example of human greed not a greedy religion. You're confusing the two.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
Click to expand...


All you doing is cherry-picking to make your case. Everything I mentioned is grounded in reality. You can find case after case of people saying how their faith has changed them and how they're doing positive things in the world. You ignore these things because they don't fit you narrative.

And Again you're confusing the bad  actions of some Christians with the religion they're supposed to be following. These bad people would commit bad actions whether they were Christians or not.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.



Apologies. I'll correct:



Mudda said:


> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.



Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.


----------



## BreezeWood

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
Click to expand...

.


Brynmr said:


> And Again you're confusing the bad actions of some Christians with the religion they're supposed to be following.





Brynmr said:


> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.



_*
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_


What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.

_*
It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_


no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Again you're confusing the bad actions of some Christians with the religion they're supposed to be following.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> 
> What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.
> 
> _*
> It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_
> 
> 
> no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.


----------



## RWS

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Him to allow the atrocities and wickedness that has occurred in His Church without smiting anybody, and also for other monotheistic religions in His name, guilty of equal crimes, and which span thousands of years without godly punishment... means one of 4 options:
> 
> 1. He doesn't know
> 2. He doesn't care
> 3. He doesn't exist
> 4. He is evil
> 
> 
> Maybe those thousands of years insanity are merely the consequences, the natural result,  of people giving their minds over to superstitious archaic lore, irrational religious beliefs and degrading religious practices..
> 
> 
> How could you blame that on God?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> If you take your own children and instill in them a mental illness since birth by teaching them to believe in irrational nonsense how can you then turn around and blame God for the stupid things they might say or do in life?
> 
> Wouldn't it be your own fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No! That is not an answer based on the question. Sure! If you instill that mental illness into your offspring, and then they go about and do things that are detrimental to society, they are still following the religion that the parents taught them. Which tells them that "God" commands and approves those horrific acts.
> 
> So it does come back to the "God" question. Because if that bullshit didn't exist, most people wouldn't do the bad things they have done. And if "He" is an omnipotent, benevolent, and all-knowing figure, there are only 4 reasons why He would allow what has happened in the last 6000 years of recorded human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## RWS

Somehow that got trapped in the previous post, but here it goes again:

No! That is not an answer based on the question. Sure! If you instill that mental illness into your offspring, and then they go about and do things that are detrimental to society, they are still following the religion that the parents taught them. Which tells them that "God" commands and approves those horrific acts.

So it does come back to the "God" question. Because if that bullshit didn't exist, most people wouldn't do the bad things they have done. And if "He" is an omnipotent, benevolent, and all-knowing figure, there are only 4 reasons why He would allow the mass atrocities that have happened in the last 6000 years of recorded human history. I'm talking the really terrible shit. 

I was born into that religious bullshit. I refused it as a child, and after many years, learned reality. Luckily, my parents didn't force me to continue the bullshit. But I still did, on my own, researching stuff... and learned a lot of things! Before the internet! 

If i was one of those people given the choice to accept or die, during the Crusades and the Inquisitions... I would have probably accepted the BS if I had a family. If i didn't, I would have spit in their faces, and let them burn me as a faggot, and try to take as many of them down before I got burnt.

The question I proposed, and the votes I'd like to see, are based on why a benevolent, omnipotent, all-knowing "God" would let those horrors happen. There are 4 options that I can think of, and I listed them above. If anyone can think of a 5th, feel free to add it....


----------



## RWS

Here it is again, for posterity...

*For Him to allow the atrocities and wickedness that has occurred in His Church without smiting anybody, and also for other monotheistic religions in His name, guilty of equal crimes, and which span thousands of years without godly punishment... means one of 4 options:

1. He doesn't know
2. He doesn't care
3. He doesn't exist
4. He is evil*


----------



## RWS

Actually, there is a 5th option, and that is that our universe is a simulation in somebody else's computer game.

And they're trying different stuff, and don't really care what happens. They're not a benevolent God, but a snot-nosed kid in some very technically-advanced society. Sometimes they don't even know what happened if they weren't present at the time. And they're not evil. They're just playing a video game, like the "Sims", but way more advanced.

And that's us. We're the consequences.

A lot of scientists are into this idea, but it raises other questions about those "other" people that are playing the video game. It's definitely an option though.

That should be #5. We are a virtual simulation (like the Matrix)...

*For Him to allow the atrocities and wickedness that has occurred in His Church without smiting anybody, and also for other monotheistic religions in His name, guilty of equal crimes, and which span thousands of years without godly punishment... means one of 5 options:

1. He doesn't know
2. He doesn't care
3. He doesn't exist
4. He is evil
5. He is playing a video game*


----------



## Brynmr

BreezeWood said:


> _*
> Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> 
> What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.
> 
> _*
> It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_
> 
> 
> no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.
> 
> .




How do you know it's a lie. And keep in mind that not everyone wants to get to God. Your reasoning is founded on a straw man argument. You'll have to do better  than that.


----------



## Brynmr

RWS said:


> Here it is again, for posterity...
> 
> *For Him to allow the atrocities and wickedness that has occurred in His Church without smiting anybody, and also for other monotheistic religions in His name, guilty of equal crimes, and which span thousands of years without godly punishment... means one of 4 options:
> 
> 1. He doesn't know
> 2. He doesn't care
> 3. He doesn't exist
> 4. He is evil*



I think Christians would answer with the free will business but then I'd counter with why then have a god at all. I think your question is a good one and one I've been asking as well. How can an omnipotent god allow ISIS (for instance) slaughter men, women, and children. Also, Christians thank God when something good happens so why do they think God has a hand in things then and not at other times.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want greedy? The Catholic church is the richest entity in the world and have their hand out every time you go to church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an example of human greed not a greedy religion. You're confusing the two.
Click to expand...

So the heads of all religions are going to hell?


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enlighten us, what good has religion brought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions have helped some of us become more loving and compassionate people, lessened our fears and brought much inner peace. This radiates out into society in large and small ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno brah, don't you watch the news? Christians shooting doctors, Muslims wanting to kill everyone, Sikhs and Hindus at each other throats... What your talking about is what religion is supposed to do. That wasn't the question. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you doing is cherry-picking to make your case. Everything I mentioned is grounded in reality. You can find case after case of people saying how their faith has changed them and how they're doing positive things in the world. You ignore these things because they don't fit you narrative.
> 
> And Again you're confusing the bad  actions of some Christians with the religion they're supposed to be following. These bad people would commit bad actions whether they were Christians or not.
Click to expand...

Religion changes people to feel better about themselves by telling them a load of malarkey, just like Scientology, Jim Jones, John Smith and all the rest of the con men. I guess we have a very different version of the words "good actions". Mine doesn't involve filling people's heads with nonsense, otherwise known as brainwashing, so I can get them to follow me like sheep. They might as well be on hard drugs, they also waste lives.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want greedy? The Catholic church is the richest entity in the world and have their hand out every time you go to church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an example of human greed not a greedy religion. You're confusing the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the heads of all religions are going to hell?
Click to expand...


Only if you hold to the false idea that only perfect people are admitted to Heaven.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
Click to expand...

Religion is the one that invented women as second class citizens. Some religions outright enslave women with other religions' duplicity.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
Click to expand...

No worries.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want greedy? The Catholic church is the richest entity in the world and have their hand out every time you go to church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an example of human greed not a greedy religion. You're confusing the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the heads of all religions are going to hell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you hold to the false idea that only perfect people are admitted to Heaven.
Click to expand...

So you can be a greedy bastard like the pope and still get into heaven? No thanks, I think I'll pass on it.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Again you're confusing the bad actions of some Christians with the religion they're supposed to be following.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*
> Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> 
> What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.
> 
> _*
> It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_
> 
> 
> no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
Click to expand...

Christians may have put a man on the moon, but it was science, not religion, that did the heavy lifting.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Religion changes people to feel better about themselves by telling them a load of malarkey, just like Scientology, Jim Jones, John Smith and all the rest of the con men. I guess we have a very different version of the words "good actions". Mine doesn't involve filling people's heads with nonsense, otherwise known as brainwashing, so I can get them to follow me like sheep. They might as well be on hard drugs, they also waste lives.



You're claiming religions are nonsense because you think they are nonsense. That's nonsense. You're showing your ignorance of religions and setting up straw man arguments.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you hold to the false idea that only perfect people are admitted to Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can be a greedy bastard like the pope and still get into heaven? No thanks, I think I'll pass on it.
Click to expand...


If you're going to criticize religions, you would do well to know something about them first.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is the one that invented women as second class citizens. Some religions outright enslave women with other religions' duplicity.
Click to expand...


Islam certainly does but today's Christianity treats women very well.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion changes people to feel better about themselves by telling them a load of malarkey, just like Scientology, Jim Jones, John Smith and all the rest of the con men. I guess we have a very different version of the words "good actions". Mine doesn't involve filling people's heads with nonsense, otherwise known as brainwashing, so I can get them to follow me like sheep. They might as well be on hard drugs, they also waste lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're claiming religions are nonsense because you think they are nonsense. That's nonsense. You're showing your ignorance of religions and setting up straw man arguments.
Click to expand...

If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you hold to the false idea that only perfect people are admitted to Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can be a greedy bastard like the pope and still get into heaven? No thanks, I think I'll pass on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're going to criticize religions, you would do well to know something about them first.
Click to expand...

So thats a yes, I presume?


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is the one that invented women as second class citizens. Some religions outright enslave women with other religions' duplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islam certainly does but today's Christianity treats women very well.
Click to expand...

Is that why the pope won't let women be equal to men, even in the church?


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.



Who's my invisible friend?


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you hold to the false idea that only perfect people are admitted to Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can be a greedy bastard like the pope and still get into heaven? No thanks, I think I'll pass on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're going to criticize religions, you would do well to know something about them first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So thats a yes, I presume?
Click to expand...


No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is the one that invented women as second class citizens. Some religions outright enslave women with other religions' duplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islam certainly does but today's Christianity treats women very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why the pope won't let women be equal to men, even in the church?
Click to expand...


Again, you're cherry picking. Most Christians I know aren't Catholic and women in their churches are treated equal to men.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Because if that bullshit didn't exist, most people wouldn't do the bad things they have done.



That is some major league bullshit right there.  That is as stupid as saying the devil made you do it.  At what point does your brain make the connection to reality that we are all accountable for our own actions? Is it only when man does something good that you say...  _"look at me, I did something good?  That was all me right there!"_  And when you do something bad do you say, _"well.. that's not my fault... that's the fault of that bullshit.  If that bullshit wouldn't have existed, it wouldn't have happened."_

Do you see how stupid that sounds?


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> So you can be a greedy bastard like the pope and still get into heaven? No thanks, I think I'll pass on it.



Even a non Christian like myself knows that imperfect Christians like the Pope (and every other Christian) are saved through faith and the blood of Christ.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.



What straw man argument would that be?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> If i was one of those people given the choice to accept or die, during the Crusades and the Inquisitions... I would have probably accepted the BS if I had a family. If i didn't, I would have spit in their faces, and let them burn me as a faggot, and try to take as many of them down before I got burnt.



And you don't think you are biased against Christians and Christianity because of your sexual orientation?


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's my invisible friend?
Click to expand...

Your god. DUH!


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you hold to the false idea that only perfect people are admitted to Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can be a greedy bastard like the pope and still get into heaven? No thanks, I think I'll pass on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're going to criticize religions, you would do well to know something about them first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So thats a yes, I presume?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant", 
Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Your god. DUH!



I don't believe in "God". Feeling silly now?


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You incorrectly attributed this quote to me instead of Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, here's another example, "2) Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon." Religion has separated everyone into little groups that all hate each other and think that everyone else is wrong. The result has been a never ending cycle of wars, hatred and the enslavement of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is the one that invented women as second class citizens. Some religions outright enslave women with other religions' duplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islam certainly does but today's Christianity treats women very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why the pope won't let women be equal to men, even in the church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're cherry picking. Most Christians I know aren't Catholic and women in their churches are treated equal to men.
Click to expand...

So what small sect are you from?

PS dingbat liked your last post and he's a Catholic, lol. I guess he doesn't know what the word means, lol.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your god. DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "God". Feeling silly now?
Click to expand...

No, if you're going to hide that fact and take pot-shots, then you must be pretty embarrassed about your sect.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> The question I proposed, and the votes I'd like to see, are based on why a benevolent, omnipotent, all-knowing "God" would let those horrors happen.



First of all you are assigning acts of men to God which is ridiculous.  His Ways are not our ways.  To suppose that there can be no God unless everything is perfect is illogical.  The answer to your question is that it is not virtuous if you are made to behave virtuous.  It seems to me that the crop He is growing is virtue.  How do I know?  Because like all stages of matter before it, consciousness and conscienceness are evolving.  Subatomic particles evolved to hydrogen and helium, hydrogen and helium evolved to cosmic structure, cosmic structure evolved to all the elements and compound we see today, nonliving matter evolved to living matter and living matter evolved to beings that know and create. The final leap to be made is consciousness / conscienceness. 

Furthermore, He uses everything for our good.  Good does come from bad and bad does come from good.  Only someone with a very narrow worldview would not recognize that hardship can build character.  There has never been an uncaused event.  Everything is cause and effect.  Goodness does rise from hardship.  People do overcome adversity and actually grow from it.  No one lives forever.  Dying is a part of living.  You might as well blame God for death while you are at it.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
Click to expand...

He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
Click to expand...

Yep, hang on to that old saw for dear life! It's all you've got!


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
Click to expand...

Shaddap! Or I'll send you back on TILT!


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your god. DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "God". Feeling silly now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, if you're going to hide that fact and take pot-shots, then you must be pretty embarrassed about your sect.
Click to expand...


I wasn't hiding anything. Your mistake was you presumed what I believed without asking. Now you're compounding your mistake by trying to blame me. You should take some responsibility.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies. I'll correct:
> 
> Wrong. It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things. Religions attempt to deal with these negative aspects.
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is the one that invented women as second class citizens. Some religions outright enslave women with other religions' duplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Islam certainly does but today's Christianity treats women very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why the pope won't let women be equal to men, even in the church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're cherry picking. Most Christians I know aren't Catholic and women in their churches are treated equal to men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what small sect are you from?
> 
> PS dingbat liked your last post and he's a Catholic, lol. I guess he doesn't know what the word means, lol.
Click to expand...

This isn't a football game.  I don't root for "my" team.  I root for truth.  If you ever said anything that made sense and was truthful, I'd agree with that too.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about God or mudda?


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, hang on to that old saw for dear life! It's all you've got!
Click to expand...


Are you too stupid to understand the point I made or are you just covering for your mistakes. I'm guessing the latter.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shaddap! Or I'll send you back on TILT!
Click to expand...

You are the one who has an external locus of control, ot me.  I don't transfer my control to external sources, that's what you do.  In fact you just did that when you blamed Brynmr for YOUR actions.  It seems that now there are two of us who control you.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you talking about God or mudda?
Click to expand...

lol, good one.  Mudda.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Your god. DUH!



Btw, you never answered post #2388. Cat got you tongue or were you just BSing us.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, hang on to that old saw for dear life! It's all you've got!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you too stupid to understand the point I made or are you just covering for your mistakes. I'm guessing the latter.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe it is more driven by pride and vanity.  He can't admit that he was ever wrong about anything.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, hang on to that old saw for dear life! It's all you've got!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you too stupid to understand the point I made or are you just covering for your mistakes. I'm guessing the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I believe it is more driven by pride and vanity.  He can't admit that he was ever wrong about anything.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's a better explanation.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> I think Christians would answer with the free will business but then I'd counter with why then have a god at all.



I don't believe we had a say in the matter.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion changes people to feel better about themselves by telling them a load of malarkey, just like Scientology, Jim Jones, John Smith and all the rest of the con men. I guess we have a very different version of the words "good actions". Mine doesn't involve filling people's heads with nonsense, otherwise known as brainwashing, so I can get them to follow me like sheep. They might as well be on hard drugs, they also waste lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're claiming religions are nonsense because you think they are nonsense. That's nonsense. You're showing your ignorance of religions and setting up straw man arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...

Not true.  Dopamine serves two purposes; 1. it makes us feel happy; 2. it turns on all of the learning centers of the brain. Research shows that being happy has a competitiveness advantage to being neutral, negative or stressed. Furthermore, research shows that we can train our brains to be happy by being thankful, prayerful and performing random acts of kindness over a 30 day period. All things that Christianity teaches its adherents to practice on a regular basis. So while it may be true that all Christians don't practice these values, the ones that do will enjoy a happiness advantage.  It is no accident that Western Civilization was so successful.  Happiness leads to success.  

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/pdfs/GratitudePDFs/6Emmons-BlessingsBurdens.pdf (thankfulness)

Dweck, C. (2007). _Mindset: The new psychology of success_. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. (meditation/prayer)

http://sonjalyubomirsky.com/wp-content/themes/sonjalyubomirsky/papers/LSS2005.pdf (conscious/random acts of kindness)


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.



Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity. 

Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.

So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has militant atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, militant atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.

 Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your god. DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "God". Feeling silly now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, if you're going to hide that fact and take pot-shots, then you must be pretty embarrassed about your sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't hiding anything. Your mistake was you presumed what I believed without asking. Now you're compounding your mistake by trying to blame me. You should take some responsibility.
Click to expand...

My opinions stand on their own, regardless of anyone's subterfuge, or lack of belief in a god. So you're a loser anyways. Happy?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is the one that invented women as second class citizens. Some religions outright enslave women with other religions' duplicity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam certainly does but today's Christianity treats women very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that why the pope won't let women be equal to men, even in the church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're cherry picking. Most Christians I know aren't Catholic and women in their churches are treated equal to men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what small sect are you from?
> 
> PS dingbat liked your last post and he's a Catholic, lol. I guess he doesn't know what the word means, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't a football game.  I don't root for "my" team.  I root for truth.  If you ever said anything that made sense and was truthful, I'd agree with that too.
Click to expand...

You should google the word Catholic, you've obviously lost your way.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, hang on to that old saw for dear life! It's all you've got!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you too stupid to understand the point I made or are you just covering for your mistakes. I'm guessing the latter.
Click to expand...

Good, you have a good hold on your myths. Good for you.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shaddap! Or I'll send you back on TILT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who has an external locus of control, ot me.  I don't transfer my control to external sources, that's what you do.  In fact you just did that when you blamed Brynmr for YOUR actions.  It seems that now there are two of us who control you.
Click to expand...

Am I allowed to have anyone but god control me? 
I bet there's a passage in the bible about that, do you know it?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you talking about God or mudda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, good one.  Mudda.
Click to expand...

lol, good one. God.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your god. DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "God". Feeling silly now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, if you're going to hide that fact and take pot-shots, then you must be pretty embarrassed about your sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't hiding anything. Your mistake was you presumed what I believed without asking. Now you're compounding your mistake by trying to blame me. You should take some responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinions stand on their own, regardless of anyone's subterfuge, or lack of belief in a god. So you're a loser anyways. Happy?
Click to expand...

I'm happy most of the time.  It is the secret of my success.  I suspect Brynmr is too.  I doubt very seriously if you are though.  People who troll religious forums to mock the beliefs of others do not have true happiness which is why they seek artificial happiness.  The problem with that is that it is not satisfying.  You need to constantly feed your wolf.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islam certainly does but today's Christianity treats women very well.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why the pope won't let women be equal to men, even in the church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're cherry picking. Most Christians I know aren't Catholic and women in their churches are treated equal to men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what small sect are you from?
> 
> PS dingbat liked your last post and he's a Catholic, lol. I guess he doesn't know what the word means, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't a football game.  I don't root for "my" team.  I root for truth.  If you ever said anything that made sense and was truthful, I'd agree with that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should google the word Catholic, you've obviously lost your way.
Click to expand...

How so?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shaddap! Or I'll send you back on TILT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who has an external locus of control, ot me.  I don't transfer my control to external sources, that's what you do.  In fact you just did that when you blamed Brynmr for YOUR actions.  It seems that now there are two of us who control you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I allowed to have anyone but god control me?
> I bet there's a passage in the bible about that, do you know it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of what Bible verse you are referring to but you are allowed to do anything you want.  It's called free will.  Choose wisely because choices have consequences.  We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event.  Effects have causes.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, that old saw "you're ignorant",
> Still, you have no proof for what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you talking about God or mudda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, good one.  Mudda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, good one. God.
Click to expand...

Which is how I know you are not objective.  Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.


----------



## sealybobo

I


ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has militant atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, militant atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
Click to expand...


I don't think there ever was a time when athiests killed for atheist s


ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your god. DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "God". Feeling silly now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, if you're going to hide that fact and take pot-shots, then you must be pretty embarrassed about your sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't hiding anything. Your mistake was you presumed what I believed without asking. Now you're compounding your mistake by trying to blame me. You should take some responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinions stand on their own, regardless of anyone's subterfuge, or lack of belief in a god. So you're a loser anyways. Happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy most of the time.  It is the secret of my success.  I suspect Brynmr is too.  I doubt very seriously if you are though.  People who troll religious forums to mock the beliefs of others do not have true happiness which is why they seek artificial happiness.  The problem with that is that it is not satisfying.  You need to constantly feed your wolf.
Click to expand...


Everyone says I'm always happy and I truly am. Politics religion and race are my three things I like to talk about and you can't go around talking about this stuff in public. Everyone knows you don't discuss theses 3 things if you want to have friends. I've toned down my anti GOP schtick at poker games because everyone says " oh brother" when I bring it up. So I'm not a know it all anymore. I listen and ask questions and I say I hope you are right instead of telling them they are wrong.

So they might think I'm angry when really I'm just passionate. Im passionate about atheism too. I look at pedophile priests Scientology and radical Islam and can you blame me? Sorry we lump in good Christians with the other nuts but you really are all just different nuts in a bowl of mixed nuts.

So is mudda a happy person? Just because he passionately believes religions are bad for us doesn't mean that he's angry or a mean person. 

I guess it is kind of mean to tell people that there is no God because that would be heartbreaking for them so we don't tell people in public unless we find out we are talking to a fellow atheist or agnostic. Even if the person said they didn't belong to an organized religion. But I don't tell most religious people I know that I don't believe a God exists. Just like I don't wake a sleepwalker.

But anyone who comes here is seeking the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. And actually you appreciate now more when you realize this is your one shot. Be greatful you got it and live it up


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> I
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has militant atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, militant atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there ever was a time when athiests killed for atheist s
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "God". Feeling silly now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, if you're going to hide that fact and take pot-shots, then you must be pretty embarrassed about your sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't hiding anything. Your mistake was you presumed what I believed without asking. Now you're compounding your mistake by trying to blame me. You should take some responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinions stand on their own, regardless of anyone's subterfuge, or lack of belief in a god. So you're a loser anyways. Happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy most of the time.  It is the secret of my success.  I suspect Brynmr is too.  I doubt very seriously if you are though.  People who troll religious forums to mock the beliefs of others do not have true happiness which is why they seek artificial happiness.  The problem with that is that it is not satisfying.  You need to constantly feed your wolf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone says I'm always happy and I truly am. Politics religion and race are my three things I like to talk about and you can't go around talking about this stuff in public. Everyone knows you don't discuss theses 3 things if you want to have friends. I've toned down my anti GOP schtick at poker games because everyone says " oh brother" when I bring it up. So I'm not a know it all anymore. I listen and ask questions and I say I hope you are right instead of telling them they are wrong.
> 
> So they might think I'm angry when really I'm just passionate. Im passionate about atheism too. I look at pedophile priests Scientology and radical Islam and can you blame me? Sorry we lump in good Christians with the other nuts but you really are all just different nuts in a bowl of mixed nuts.
> 
> So is mudda a happy person? Just because he passionately believes religions are bad for us doesn't mean that he's angry or a mean person.
> 
> I guess it is kind of mean to tell people that there is no God because that would be heartbreaking for them so we don't tell people in public unless we find out we are talking to a fellow atheist or agnostic. Even if the person said they didn't belong to an organized religion. But I don't tell most religious people I know that I don't believe a God exists. Just like I don't wake a sleepwalker.
> 
> But anyone who comes here is seeking the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. And actually you appreciate now more when you realize this is your one shot. Be greatful you got it and live it up
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote except the motivations of Mudda.  He is here for one thing only, to condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> People who troll religious forums to mock the beliefs of others do not have true happiness which is why they seek artificial happiness.  The problem with that is that it is not satisfying.  You need to constantly feed your wolf.


You must be looking in a mirror.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who troll religious forums to mock the beliefs of others do not have true happiness which is why they seek artificial happiness.  The problem with that is that it is not satisfying.  You need to constantly feed your wolf.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be looking in a mirror.
Click to expand...

How so?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why the pope won't let women be equal to men, even in the church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're cherry picking. Most Christians I know aren't Catholic and women in their churches are treated equal to men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what small sect are you from?
> 
> PS dingbat liked your last post and he's a Catholic, lol. I guess he doesn't know what the word means, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't a football game.  I don't root for "my" team.  I root for truth.  If you ever said anything that made sense and was truthful, I'd agree with that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should google the word Catholic, you've obviously lost your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

Exactly, you're so lost you don't know you're lost. Start by making a list of all the stuff on page 1 of the bible that you don't think is real and then we'll move to page 2. Ok?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shaddap! Or I'll send you back on TILT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who has an external locus of control, ot me.  I don't transfer my control to external sources, that's what you do.  In fact you just did that when you blamed Brynmr for YOUR actions.  It seems that now there are two of us who control you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I allowed to have anyone but god control me?
> I bet there's a passage in the bible about that, do you know it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure of what Bible verse you are referring to but you are allowed to do anything you want.  It's called free will.  Choose wisely because choices have consequences.  We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event.  Effects have causes.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.
Click to expand...

You want me to worship you, a false idol. Pretty sure that's a no-no in the bible.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you talking about God or mudda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, good one.  Mudda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, good one. God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is how I know you are not objective.  Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about yourself so much? Your dog left you?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has militant atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, militant atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there ever was a time when athiests killed for atheist s
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you're going to hide that fact and take pot-shots, then you must be pretty embarrassed about your sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't hiding anything. Your mistake was you presumed what I believed without asking. Now you're compounding your mistake by trying to blame me. You should take some responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinions stand on their own, regardless of anyone's subterfuge, or lack of belief in a god. So you're a loser anyways. Happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy most of the time.  It is the secret of my success.  I suspect Brynmr is too.  I doubt very seriously if you are though.  People who troll religious forums to mock the beliefs of others do not have true happiness which is why they seek artificial happiness.  The problem with that is that it is not satisfying.  You need to constantly feed your wolf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone says I'm always happy and I truly am. Politics religion and race are my three things I like to talk about and you can't go around talking about this stuff in public. Everyone knows you don't discuss theses 3 things if you want to have friends. I've toned down my anti GOP schtick at poker games because everyone says " oh brother" when I bring it up. So I'm not a know it all anymore. I listen and ask questions and I say I hope you are right instead of telling them they are wrong.
> 
> So they might think I'm angry when really I'm just passionate. Im passionate about atheism too. I look at pedophile priests Scientology and radical Islam and can you blame me? Sorry we lump in good Christians with the other nuts but you really are all just different nuts in a bowl of mixed nuts.
> 
> So is mudda a happy person? Just because he passionately believes religions are bad for us doesn't mean that he's angry or a mean person.
> 
> I guess it is kind of mean to tell people that there is no God because that would be heartbreaking for them so we don't tell people in public unless we find out we are talking to a fellow atheist or agnostic. Even if the person said they didn't belong to an organized religion. But I don't tell most religious people I know that I don't believe a God exists. Just like I don't wake a sleepwalker.
> 
> But anyone who comes here is seeking the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. And actually you appreciate now more when you realize this is your one shot. Be greatful you got it and live it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote except the motivations of Mudda.  He is here for one thing only, to condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.
Click to expand...

No, actually, I came here looking to see why people believe what they believe and if they had any good reasons (proof) for such beliefs. As for you dingbat, you're fucking really obnoxious, and then get all upset when anyone gives it back to you. If you can't take the heat, don't be such an asshole.


----------



## hobelim

RWS said:


> Somehow that got trapped in the previous post, but here it goes again:
> 
> No! That is not an answer based on the question. Sure! If you instill that mental illness into your offspring, and then they go about and do things that are detrimental to society, they are still following the religion that the parents taught them. Which tells them that "God" commands and approves those horrific acts.
> 
> So it does come back to the "God" question. Because if that bullshit didn't exist, most people wouldn't do the bad things they have done. And if "He" is an omnipotent, benevolent, and all-knowing figure, there are only 4 reasons why He would allow the mass atrocities that have happened in the last 6000 years of recorded human history. I'm talking the really terrible shit.
> 
> I was born into that religious bullshit. I refused it as a child, and after many years, learned reality. Luckily, my parents didn't force me to continue the bullshit. But I still did, on my own, researching stuff... and learned a lot of things! Before the internet!
> 
> If i was one of those people given the choice to accept or die, during the Crusades and the Inquisitions... I would have probably accepted the BS if I had a family. If i didn't, I would have spit in their faces, and let them burn me as a faggot, and try to take as many of them down before I got burnt.
> 
> The question I proposed, and the votes I'd like to see, are based on why a benevolent, omnipotent, all-knowing "God" would let those horrors happen. There are 4 options that I can think of, and I listed them above. If anyone can think of a 5th, feel free to add it....




Ok fine.

I would have to go with #2, he doesn't give a shit.


If you told someone that if they filled their minds with irrational garbage they would become confused and say and do stupid things that injure themselves and others and they did it anyway would you care if they disregarded your warning, filled their heads with irrational garbage, became confused, and did stupid things?

If you saw someone die before your eyes, would you try to revive them a few years later no matter how much you cared? If you didn't would it be because you didn't care?

If a person who claimed to love you disrespected you to your face would you then invite them to a party in your house? Would you care if they had no where else to go?


Even if God exists or doesn't exist, give a shit, or doesn't give a shit,  the problem is still with people. They are the cause of the problems that only they can fix.


If people gave a shit, it would not be legal to rape the minds of children, the Pope would not be on national television eating the flesh of a three in one mangod as if it was some holy obligation,  and religious hypocrites, actual talking serpents just like in the fairy tale,  would be purged from every level and branch of government.


Then maybe God would care and things would improve immediately..........

If you thought something was dead but then saw signs of life wouldn't you immediately try to assist in its revival, but only after seeing signs of life?

Do you give a shit?


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your god. DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "God". Feeling silly now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, if you're going to hide that fact and take pot-shots, then you must be pretty embarrassed about your sect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't hiding anything. Your mistake was you presumed what I believed without asking. Now you're compounding your mistake by trying to blame me. You should take some responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinions stand on their own, regardless of anyone's subterfuge, or lack of belief in a god. So you're a loser anyways. Happy?
Click to expand...



That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, hang on to that old saw for dear life! It's all you've got!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you too stupid to understand the point I made or are you just covering for your mistakes. I'm guessing the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, you have a good hold on your myths. Good for you.
Click to expand...


Nothing you're posting has any relation to the points I've been making. You can't respond to them. Ok.


----------



## Brynmr

Mudda said:


> Why are you talking about yourself so much? Your dog left you?



You're just a troll. Off to ignore land for you. Bye....


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about yourself so much? Your dog left you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just a troll. Off to ignore land for you. Bye....
Click to expand...

You never said what religion you are in. Too embarrassed to say? I understand.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2387. That you don't know something so basic to Christianity shows me your ignorance of the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, hang on to that old saw for dear life! It's all you've got!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you too stupid to understand the point I made or are you just covering for your mistakes. I'm guessing the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, you have a good hold on your myths. Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you're posting has any relation to the points I've been making. You can't respond to them. Ok.
Click to expand...

You had no serious point.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're cherry picking. Most Christians I know aren't Catholic and women in their churches are treated equal to men.
> 
> 
> 
> So what small sect are you from?
> 
> PS dingbat liked your last post and he's a Catholic, lol. I guess he doesn't know what the word means, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't a football game.  I don't root for "my" team.  I root for truth.  If you ever said anything that made sense and was truthful, I'd agree with that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should google the word Catholic, you've obviously lost your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, you're so lost you don't know you're lost. Start by making a list of all the stuff on page 1 of the bible that you don't think is real and then we'll move to page 2. Ok?
Click to expand...

We've had this conversation like 10 times.  You are proving my point about you.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has militant atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, militant atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there ever was a time when athiests killed for atheist s
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't hiding anything. Your mistake was you presumed what I believed without asking. Now you're compounding your mistake by trying to blame me. You should take some responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinions stand on their own, regardless of anyone's subterfuge, or lack of belief in a god. So you're a loser anyways. Happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy most of the time.  It is the secret of my success.  I suspect Brynmr is too.  I doubt very seriously if you are though.  People who troll religious forums to mock the beliefs of others do not have true happiness which is why they seek artificial happiness.  The problem with that is that it is not satisfying.  You need to constantly feed your wolf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone says I'm always happy and I truly am. Politics religion and race are my three things I like to talk about and you can't go around talking about this stuff in public. Everyone knows you don't discuss theses 3 things if you want to have friends. I've toned down my anti GOP schtick at poker games because everyone says " oh brother" when I bring it up. So I'm not a know it all anymore. I listen and ask questions and I say I hope you are right instead of telling them they are wrong.
> 
> So they might think I'm angry when really I'm just passionate. Im passionate about atheism too. I look at pedophile priests Scientology and radical Islam and can you blame me? Sorry we lump in good Christians with the other nuts but you really are all just different nuts in a bowl of mixed nuts.
> 
> So is mudda a happy person? Just because he passionately believes religions are bad for us doesn't mean that he's angry or a mean person.
> 
> I guess it is kind of mean to tell people that there is no God because that would be heartbreaking for them so we don't tell people in public unless we find out we are talking to a fellow atheist or agnostic. Even if the person said they didn't belong to an organized religion. But I don't tell most religious people I know that I don't believe a God exists. Just like I don't wake a sleepwalker.
> 
> But anyone who comes here is seeking the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. And actually you appreciate now more when you realize this is your one shot. Be greatful you got it and live it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote except the motivations of Mudda.  He is here for one thing only, to condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually, I came here looking to see why people believe what they believe and if they had any good reasons (proof) for such beliefs. As for you dingbat, you're fucking really obnoxious, and then get all upset when anyone gives it back to you. If you can't take the heat, don't be such an asshole.
Click to expand...

No.  You came here to mock people because you are a troll and it the only way for you to find happiness.  You are just too much of a pussy to admit it.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Shaddap! Or I'll send you back on TILT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who has an external locus of control, ot me.  I don't transfer my control to external sources, that's what you do.  In fact you just did that when you blamed Brynmr for YOUR actions.  It seems that now there are two of us who control you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I allowed to have anyone but god control me?
> I bet there's a passage in the bible about that, do you know it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure of what Bible verse you are referring to but you are allowed to do anything you want.  It's called free will.  Choose wisely because choices have consequences.  We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event.  Effects have causes.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want me to worship you, a false idol. Pretty sure that's a no-no in the bible.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you believe.  The beliefs of a troll are meaningless to me.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't care.  He is only here for his own amusement.  He is a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about God or mudda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, good one.  Mudda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, good one. God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is how I know you are not objective.  Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you talking about yourself so much? Your dog left you?
Click to expand...

The truth usually hurts before it helps.  You are the sum of your choices.


----------



## BreezeWood

Brynmr said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> 
> What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.
> 
> _*
> It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_
> 
> 
> no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie. And keep in mind that not everyone wants to get to God. Your reasoning is founded on a straw man argument. You'll have to do better  than that.
Click to expand...

.


Brynmr said:


> How do you know it's a lie.




for such a statement to be true there would require and would exist physical proof of its authenticity, the stawman is your insistence the belief is anymore than your own acquiescence to a false religion. and why your religion has a history of oppression necessary without the compelling proof for its existence when the written text is put in doubt.

.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a placebo religion makes people feel better without doing any harm to them or other, I'd say go for it. But sorry, religions cause so much hate against others, like women, gays, other religions, doctors... and cause too many wars, even today. So the only strawman argument is the one made by your invisible friend who doesn't actually exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has militant atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, militant atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there ever was a time when athiests killed for atheist s
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinions stand on their own, regardless of anyone's subterfuge, or lack of belief in a god. So you're a loser anyways. Happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy most of the time.  It is the secret of my success.  I suspect Brynmr is too.  I doubt very seriously if you are though.  People who troll religious forums to mock the beliefs of others do not have true happiness which is why they seek artificial happiness.  The problem with that is that it is not satisfying.  You need to constantly feed your wolf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone says I'm always happy and I truly am. Politics religion and race are my three things I like to talk about and you can't go around talking about this stuff in public. Everyone knows you don't discuss theses 3 things if you want to have friends. I've toned down my anti GOP schtick at poker games because everyone says " oh brother" when I bring it up. So I'm not a know it all anymore. I listen and ask questions and I say I hope you are right instead of telling them they are wrong.
> 
> So they might think I'm angry when really I'm just passionate. Im passionate about atheism too. I look at pedophile priests Scientology and radical Islam and can you blame me? Sorry we lump in good Christians with the other nuts but you really are all just different nuts in a bowl of mixed nuts.
> 
> So is mudda a happy person? Just because he passionately believes religions are bad for us doesn't mean that he's angry or a mean person.
> 
> I guess it is kind of mean to tell people that there is no God because that would be heartbreaking for them so we don't tell people in public unless we find out we are talking to a fellow atheist or agnostic. Even if the person said they didn't belong to an organized religion. But I don't tell most religious people I know that I don't believe a God exists. Just like I don't wake a sleepwalker.
> 
> But anyone who comes here is seeking the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. And actually you appreciate now more when you realize this is your one shot. Be greatful you got it and live it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote except the motivations of Mudda.  He is here for one thing only, to condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually, I came here looking to see why people believe what they believe and if they had any good reasons (proof) for such beliefs. As for you dingbat, you're fucking really obnoxious, and then get all upset when anyone gives it back to you. If you can't take the heat, don't be such an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You came here to mock people because you are a troll and it the only way for you to find happiness.  You are just too much of a pussy to admit it.
Click to expand...

You're just jealous because you can't get me to believe your bullshit view of the universe, so you got all obnoxious and keep calling me names. A very Christian way?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about God or mudda?
> 
> 
> 
> lol, good one.  Mudda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, good one. God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is how I know you are not objective.  Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you talking about yourself so much? Your dog left you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth usually hurts before it helps.  You are the sum of your choices.
Click to expand...

And you're a complete idiot. That says a lot about your choices.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shaddap! Or I'll send you back on TILT!
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who has an external locus of control, ot me.  I don't transfer my control to external sources, that's what you do.  In fact you just did that when you blamed Brynmr for YOUR actions.  It seems that now there are two of us who control you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I allowed to have anyone but god control me?
> I bet there's a passage in the bible about that, do you know it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure of what Bible verse you are referring to but you are allowed to do anything you want.  It's called free will.  Choose wisely because choices have consequences.  We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event.  Effects have causes.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want me to worship you, a false idol. Pretty sure that's a no-no in the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care what you believe.  The beliefs of a troll are meaningless to me.
Click to expand...

So you don't disagree with what I said. Good for you.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has militant atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, militant atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there ever was a time when athiests killed for atheist s
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy most of the time.  It is the secret of my success.  I suspect Brynmr is too.  I doubt very seriously if you are though.  People who troll religious forums to mock the beliefs of others do not have true happiness which is why they seek artificial happiness.  The problem with that is that it is not satisfying.  You need to constantly feed your wolf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone says I'm always happy and I truly am. Politics religion and race are my three things I like to talk about and you can't go around talking about this stuff in public. Everyone knows you don't discuss theses 3 things if you want to have friends. I've toned down my anti GOP schtick at poker games because everyone says " oh brother" when I bring it up. So I'm not a know it all anymore. I listen and ask questions and I say I hope you are right instead of telling them they are wrong.
> 
> So they might think I'm angry when really I'm just passionate. Im passionate about atheism too. I look at pedophile priests Scientology and radical Islam and can you blame me? Sorry we lump in good Christians with the other nuts but you really are all just different nuts in a bowl of mixed nuts.
> 
> So is mudda a happy person? Just because he passionately believes religions are bad for us doesn't mean that he's angry or a mean person.
> 
> I guess it is kind of mean to tell people that there is no God because that would be heartbreaking for them so we don't tell people in public unless we find out we are talking to a fellow atheist or agnostic. Even if the person said they didn't belong to an organized religion. But I don't tell most religious people I know that I don't believe a God exists. Just like I don't wake a sleepwalker.
> 
> But anyone who comes here is seeking the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. And actually you appreciate now more when you realize this is your one shot. Be greatful you got it and live it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote except the motivations of Mudda.  He is here for one thing only, to condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually, I came here looking to see why people believe what they believe and if they had any good reasons (proof) for such beliefs. As for you dingbat, you're fucking really obnoxious, and then get all upset when anyone gives it back to you. If you can't take the heat, don't be such an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You came here to mock people because you are a troll and it the only way for you to find happiness.  You are just too much of a pussy to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just jealous because you can't get me to believe your bullshit view of the universe, so you got all obnoxious and keep calling me names. A very Christian way?
Click to expand...

No.  I'm happy enough just sharing my beliefs.  I don't have a preference for an outcome which is one of the reasons for my happiness.  I never claimed I was a saint.  I just called it like I see it.  You are a troll.  Your only purpose here is to amuse yourself.  You are too much of a pussy to admit it.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who has an external locus of control, ot me.  I don't transfer my control to external sources, that's what you do.  In fact you just did that when you blamed Brynmr for YOUR actions.  It seems that now there are two of us who control you.
> 
> 
> 
> Am I allowed to have anyone but god control me?
> I bet there's a passage in the bible about that, do you know it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure of what Bible verse you are referring to but you are allowed to do anything you want.  It's called free will.  Choose wisely because choices have consequences.  We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event.  Effects have causes.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want me to worship you, a false idol. Pretty sure that's a no-no in the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care what you believe.  The beliefs of a troll are meaningless to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't disagree with what I said. Good for you.
Click to expand...

Thank you.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, good one.  Mudda.
> 
> 
> 
> lol, good one. God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is how I know you are not objective.  Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you talking about yourself so much? Your dog left you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth usually hurts before it helps.  You are the sum of your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're a complete idiot. That says a lot about your choices.
Click to expand...

So then you do not believe that you are the sum of your choices?  Do you believe in luck or magic?


----------



## Brynmr

BreezeWood said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> 
> What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.
> 
> _*
> It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_
> 
> 
> no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie. And keep in mind that not everyone wants to get to God. Your reasoning is founded on a straw man argument. You'll have to do better  than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for such a statement to be true there would require and would exist physical proof of its authenticity, the stawman is your insistence the belief is anymore than your own acquiescence to a false religion. and why your religion has a history of oppression necessary without the compelling proof for its existence when the written text is put in doubt.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You said the religion was based on a lie. I asked how do you know it's a lie. I asked you to prove YOUR assertion that the religion was based on a lie. You assumed it was a lie because the comment came with no physical proof. Pure Land Buddhism says that by relying on Amida Buddha one will gain rebirth in his Pure Land. You can call that absurd or silly but you cannot call it a lie unless you have proof that such a rebirth never happens. And even then, you'd have to show that the one making the claim knew it never happens.  

And FYI: Christianity isn't my religion.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> I don't think there ever was a time when athiests killed for atheist s
> Everyone says I'm always happy and I truly am. Politics religion and race are my three things I like to talk about and you can't go around talking about this stuff in public. Everyone knows you don't discuss theses 3 things if you want to have friends. I've toned down my anti GOP schtick at poker games because everyone says " oh brother" when I bring it up. So I'm not a know it all anymore. I listen and ask questions and I say I hope you are right instead of telling them they are wrong.
> 
> So they might think I'm angry when really I'm just passionate. Im passionate about atheism too. I look at pedophile priests Scientology and radical Islam and can you blame me? Sorry we lump in good Christians with the other nuts but you really are all just different nuts in a bowl of mixed nuts.
> 
> So is mudda a happy person? Just because he passionately believes religions are bad for us doesn't mean that he's angry or a mean person.
> 
> I guess it is kind of mean to tell people that there is no God because that would be heartbreaking for them so we don't tell people in public unless we find out we are talking to a fellow atheist or agnostic. Even if the person said they didn't belong to an organized religion. But I don't tell most religious people I know that I don't believe a God exists. Just like I don't wake a sleepwalker.
> 
> But anyone who comes here is seeking the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. And actually you appreciate now more when you realize this is your one shot. Be greatful you got it and live it up
> 
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote except the motivations of Mudda.  He is here for one thing only, to condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, actually, I came here looking to see why people believe what they believe and if they had any good reasons (proof) for such beliefs. As for you dingbat, you're fucking really obnoxious, and then get all upset when anyone gives it back to you. If you can't take the heat, don't be such an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You came here to mock people because you are a troll and it the only way for you to find happiness.  You are just too much of a pussy to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just jealous because you can't get me to believe your bullshit view of the universe, so you got all obnoxious and keep calling me names. A very Christian way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm happy enough just sharing my beliefs.  I don't have a preference for an outcome which is one of the reasons for my happiness.  I never claimed I was a saint.  I just called it like I see it.  You are a troll.  Your only purpose here is to amuse yourself.  You are too much of a pussy to admit it.
Click to expand...

You have nothing so you call me names. Your concession is duly noted.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, good one. God.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how I know you are not objective.  Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you talking about yourself so much? Your dog left you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth usually hurts before it helps.  You are the sum of your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're a complete idiot. That says a lot about your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you do not believe that you are the sum of your choices?  Do you believe in luck or magic?
Click to expand...

I have no problem being the sum of my choices, but you sure do! 
Luck is for lotteries. Real magic doesn't exist.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is how I know you are not objective.  Critical theory is the theory to unfairly criticize everything that you don't believe in to validate what you do believe in. The problem is that you never test what you do believe. Critical thinking is used to test what you do believe. Critical theory is used to test what you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about yourself so much? Your dog left you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth usually hurts before it helps.  You are the sum of your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're a complete idiot. That says a lot about your choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you do not believe that you are the sum of your choices?  Do you believe in luck or magic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem being the sum of my choices, but you sure do!
> Luck is for lotteries. Real magic doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I love choice.  Everything is choice.  You are making real progress.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> 
> What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.
> 
> _*
> It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_
> 
> 
> no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie. And keep in mind that not everyone wants to get to God. Your reasoning is founded on a straw man argument. You'll have to do better  than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for such a statement to be true there would require and would exist physical proof of its authenticity, the stawman is your insistence the belief is anymore than your own acquiescence to a false religion. and why your religion has a history of oppression necessary without the compelling proof for its existence when the written text is put in doubt.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the religion was based on a lie. I asked how do you know it's a lie. I asked you to prove YOUR assertion that the religion was based on a lie. You assumed it was a lie because the comment came with no physical proof. Pure Land Buddhism says that by relying on Amida Buddha one will gain rebirth in his Pure Land. You can call that absurd or silly but you cannot call it a lie unless you have proof that such a rebirth never happens. And even then, you'd have to show that the one making the claim knew it never happens.
> 
> And FYI: Christianity isn't my religion.
Click to expand...

Bry is too embarrassed to say what religion he is, I already asked him.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote except the motivations of Mudda.  He is here for one thing only, to condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, I came here looking to see why people believe what they believe and if they had any good reasons (proof) for such beliefs. As for you dingbat, you're fucking really obnoxious, and then get all upset when anyone gives it back to you. If you can't take the heat, don't be such an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You came here to mock people because you are a troll and it the only way for you to find happiness.  You are just too much of a pussy to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just jealous because you can't get me to believe your bullshit view of the universe, so you got all obnoxious and keep calling me names. A very Christian way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm happy enough just sharing my beliefs.  I don't have a preference for an outcome which is one of the reasons for my happiness.  I never claimed I was a saint.  I just called it like I see it.  You are a troll.  Your only purpose here is to amuse yourself.  You are too much of a pussy to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing so you call me names. Your concession is duly noted.
Click to expand...

If it makes you "feel" better.  Good for you, Mudda.  Good for you.


----------



## BreezeWood

Brynmr said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> 
> What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.
> 
> _*
> It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_
> 
> 
> no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie. And keep in mind that not everyone wants to get to God. Your reasoning is founded on a straw man argument. You'll have to do better  than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for such a statement to be true there would require and would exist physical proof of its authenticity, the stawman is your insistence the belief is anymore than your own acquiescence to a false religion. and why your religion has a history of oppression necessary without the compelling proof for its existence when the written text is put in doubt.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the religion was based on a lie. I asked how do you know it's a lie. I asked you to prove YOUR assertion that the religion was based on a lie. You assumed it was a lie because the comment came with no physical proof. Pure Land Buddhism says that by relying on Amida Buddha one will gain rebirth in his Pure Land. You can call that absurd or silly but you cannot call it a lie unless you have proof that such a rebirth never happens. And even then, you'd have to show that the one making the claim knew it never happens.
> 
> And FYI: Christianity isn't my religion.
Click to expand...

.


BreezeWood said:


> for such a statement to be true there would require and would exist physical proof of its authenticity, the stawman is your insistence the belief is anymore than your own acquiescence to a false religion. and why your (christanity) religion has a history of oppression necessary without the compelling proof for its existence when the written text is put in doubt.




the response was to your assertion people and not the religion is responsible for the religions history of oppression, I simply corrected your statement with the reason why christianity is an oppressive religion, it can not substantiate its written scriptures is why. and is a political document and not a religion.




Brynmr said:


> And FYI: Christianity isn't my religion.



nor mine.

.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, I came here looking to see why people believe what they believe and if they had any good reasons (proof) for such beliefs. As for you dingbat, you're fucking really obnoxious, and then get all upset when anyone gives it back to you. If you can't take the heat, don't be such an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You came here to mock people because you are a troll and it the only way for you to find happiness.  You are just too much of a pussy to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just jealous because you can't get me to believe your bullshit view of the universe, so you got all obnoxious and keep calling me names. A very Christian way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I'm happy enough just sharing my beliefs.  I don't have a preference for an outcome which is one of the reasons for my happiness.  I never claimed I was a saint.  I just called it like I see it.  You are a troll.  Your only purpose here is to amuse yourself.  You are too much of a pussy to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing so you call me names. Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it makes you "feel" better.  Good for you, Mudda.  Good for you.
Click to expand...

No, by all means, good for you.


----------



## Brynmr

BreezeWood said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> 
> What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.
> 
> _*
> It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_
> 
> 
> no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie. And keep in mind that not everyone wants to get to God. Your reasoning is founded on a straw man argument. You'll have to do better  than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for such a statement to be true there would require and would exist physical proof of its authenticity, the stawman is your insistence the belief is anymore than your own acquiescence to a false religion. and why your religion has a history of oppression necessary without the compelling proof for its existence when the written text is put in doubt.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the religion was based on a lie. I asked how do you know it's a lie. I asked you to prove YOUR assertion that the religion was based on a lie. You assumed it was a lie because the comment came with no physical proof. Pure Land Buddhism says that by relying on Amida Buddha one will gain rebirth in his Pure Land. You can call that absurd or silly but you cannot call it a lie unless you have proof that such a rebirth never happens. And even then, you'd have to show that the one making the claim knew it never happens.
> 
> And FYI: Christianity isn't my religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> for such a statement to be true there would require and would exist physical proof of its authenticity, the stawman is your insistence the belief is anymore than your own acquiescence to a false religion. and why your (christanity) religion has a history of oppression necessary without the compelling proof for its existence when the written text is put in doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the response was to your assertion people and not the religion is responsible for the religions history of oppression, I simply corrected your statement with the reason why christianity is an oppressive religion, it can not substantiate its written scriptures is why. and is a political document and not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And FYI: Christianity isn't my religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nor mine.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Now you're shifting the argument. I think we can agree that your 'lie' comment didn't hold water. 

As to whether or not the statement: *"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."* is true or not, is irrelevant. It can neither be *proved* true or false. This is where faith comes in. Christianity isn't a religion based on a lie as you claim nor is it a religion based on an untruth as you also now claim. It's a religion based on faith. There is nothing in the statement that is political nor does it inspire hate, greed, violence or oppression. It merely gives assurance to Christians that their salvation is assured through Christ. 

You have not shown that my original comment needed any correction. Not in the least.


----------



## BreezeWood

Brynmr said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. *__*No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> 
> What could be more negative than a religion based on a lie ... or more corrupt.
> 
> _*
> It's people's greed, lust, pride, anger and jealousy that were the cause of all those things.*_
> 
> 
> no, the written text of christianity is the cause. those that chose to worship a book of lies is the answer and the reason for their history of purposeful oppression.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie. And keep in mind that not everyone wants to get to God. Your reasoning is founded on a straw man argument. You'll have to do better  than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for such a statement to be true there would require and would exist physical proof of its authenticity, the stawman is your insistence the belief is anymore than your own acquiescence to a false religion. and why your religion has a history of oppression necessary without the compelling proof for its existence when the written text is put in doubt.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the religion was based on a lie. I asked how do you know it's a lie. I asked you to prove YOUR assertion that the religion was based on a lie. You assumed it was a lie because the comment came with no physical proof. Pure Land Buddhism says that by relying on Amida Buddha one will gain rebirth in his Pure Land. You can call that absurd or silly but you cannot call it a lie unless you have proof that such a rebirth never happens. And even then, you'd have to show that the one making the claim knew it never happens.
> 
> And FYI: Christianity isn't my religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> for such a statement to be true there would require and would exist physical proof of its authenticity, the stawman is your insistence the belief is anymore than your own acquiescence to a false religion. and why your (christanity) religion has a history of oppression necessary without the compelling proof for its existence when the written text is put in doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the response was to your assertion people and not the religion is responsible for the religions history of oppression, I simply corrected your statement with the reason why christianity is an oppressive religion, it can not substantiate its written scriptures is why. and is a political document and not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And FYI: Christianity isn't my religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nor mine.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're shifting the argument. I think we can agree that your 'lie' comment didn't hold water.
> 
> As to whether or not the statement: *"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."* is true or not, is irrelevant. It can neither be *proved* true or false. This is where faith comes in. Christianity isn't a religion based on a lie as you claim nor is it a religion based on an untruth as you also now claim. It's a religion based on faith. There is nothing in the statement that is political nor does it inspire hate, greed, violence or oppression. It merely gives assurance to Christians that their salvation is assured through Christ.
> 
> You have not shown that my original comment needed any correction. Not in the least.
Click to expand...

.


Brynmr said:


> Now you're shifting the argument. I think we can agree that your 'lie' comment didn't hold water.



no I gave the reason why christianity has a 2000 year history of oppression - it is because it is not a religion but a political statement based on religious assertions that are lies 

_*
"No one comes to the Father except through me."
*_

this statement was never spoken by Jesus who never claimed to be a god though crucified for it and is only one of many unfounded allegations used as weapons of oppression by the canonization in the 4th century that had no bearings on the relevant biblical events but of the times of its canonization, for the purposes of oppression that continues to this day.

ignoring history is your peril not mine.

.


----------



## Brynmr

BreezeWood said:


> no I gave the reason why christianity has a 2000 year history of oppression - it is because it is not a religion but a political statement based on religious assertions that are lies



That's merely your opinion - not a truth. 



> _*
> "No one comes to the Father except through me."
> *_
> 
> this statement was never spoken by Jesus



Not according to every Bible I Googled. What is your proof this was never spoken by Jesus because there's a lot of proof (or general acceptance) that it was. Also finish the verse with John 14:7.


----------



## BreezeWood

Brynmr said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> no I gave the reason why christianity has a 2000 year history of oppression - it is because it is not a religion but a political statement based on religious assertions that are lies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's merely your opinion - not a truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*"No one comes to the Father except through me."
> *_
> 
> this statement was never spoken by Jesus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to every Bible I Googled. What is your proof this was never spoken by Jesus because there's a lot of proof (or general acceptance) that it was. Also finish the verse with John 14:7.
Click to expand...

.


Brynmr said:


> What is your proof this was never spoken by Jesus



you have no proof otherwise ... the spoken religion has no record of it.

_*

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani   . 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?*_

as stated before this is the final chapter for the individual who spoke those words per the spoken religion which is where your bible originates.


this is about why the history of christianity has a record of oppression since its near beginning and certainly since the 4th century -

I simply stated that you can not blame a few bad apples for over 1600 years of continuous oppression but that it is the canonization of a political objective disguised as a religion as the cause and history is the living proof, that is not something you have yet disproved.

.


----------



## Brynmr

BreezeWood said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof this was never spoken by Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have no proof otherwise ... the spoken religion has no record of it.
> 
> _*
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani   . 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?*_
> 
> as stated before this is the final chapter for the individual who spoke those words per the spoken religion which is where your bible originates.
Click to expand...


What spoken religion? What are you talking about?

And again: it's not my Bible.


----------



## Brynmr

BreezeWood said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof this was never spoken by Jesus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have no proof otherwise ... the spoken religion has no record of it.
Click to expand...


That's not proof to support your comment. Rejected.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.

No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.

I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?

So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?



I believe Moses said that God created everything so I have to wonder what was God doing before everything existed. This is my problem with God. I believe everything operates though cause and effect so to have a something outside cause and effect is merely imaginary.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
Click to expand...


So you believe that science holds the answers to all questions but refuse to believe there are things that are unknowable.

What makes you think the current scientific way of thinking is not primitive if even correct?



sealybobo said:


> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.



That's humorous... You believe that something miraculous occurred but refuse to call it a miracle.



sealybobo said:


> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?



Why should you or science care about that? Science is only concerned with what it can observe and measure. Anything else falls into the realm of the theologians and philosophers.



sealybobo said:


> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?







Perhaps he smoked, drank, and chased women...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question I proposed, and the votes I'd like to see, are based on why a benevolent, omnipotent, all-knowing "God" would let those horrors happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all you are assigning acts of men to God which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Your benevolent, omnipotent God dictates all human behavior. Thus he allowed it, didn't know about, didn't care, or doesn't exist....


----------



## RWS

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow that got trapped in the previous post, but here it goes again:
> 
> No! That is not an answer based on the question. Sure! If you instill that mental illness into your offspring, and then they go about and do things that are detrimental to society, they are still following the religion that the parents taught them. Which tells them that "God" commands and approves those horrific acts.
> 
> So it does come back to the "God" question. Because if that bullshit didn't exist, most people wouldn't do the bad things they have done. And if "He" is an omnipotent, benevolent, and all-knowing figure, there are only 4 reasons why He would allow the mass atrocities that have happened in the last 6000 years of recorded human history. I'm talking the really terrible shit.
> 
> I was born into that religious bullshit. I refused it as a child, and after many years, learned reality. Luckily, my parents didn't force me to continue the bullshit. But I still did, on my own, researching stuff... and learned a lot of things! Before the internet!
> 
> If i was one of those people given the choice to accept or die, during the Crusades and the Inquisitions... I would have probably accepted the BS if I had a family. If i didn't, I would have spit in their faces, and let them burn me as a faggot, and try to take as many of them down before I got burnt.
> 
> The question I proposed, and the votes I'd like to see, are based on why a benevolent, omnipotent, all-knowing "God" would let those horrors happen. There are 4 options that I can think of, and I listed them above. If anyone can think of a 5th, feel free to add it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok fine.
> 
> I would have to go with #2, he doesn't give a shit.
> 
> 
> If you told someone that if they filled their minds with irrational garbage they would become confused and say and do stupid things that injure themselves and others and they did it anyway would you care if they disregarded your warning, filled their heads with irrational garbage, became confused, and did stupid things?
> 
> If you saw someone die before your eyes, would you try to revive them a few years later no matter how much you cared? If you didn't would it be because you didn't care?
> 
> 
> 
> If a person who claimed to love you disrespected you to your face would you then invite them to a party in your house? Would you care if they had no where else to go?
> 
> 
> Even if God exists or doesn't exist, give a shit, or doesn't give a shit,  the problem is still with people. They are the cause of the problems that only they can fix.
> 
> 
> If people gave a shit, it would not be legal to rape the minds of children, the Pope would not be on national television eating the flesh of a three in one mangod as if it was some holy obligation,  and religious hypocrites, actual talking serpents just like in the fairy tale,  would be purged from every level and branch of government.
> 
> 
> Then maybe God would care and things would improve immediately..........
> 
> If you thought something was dead but then saw signs of life wouldn't you immediately try to assist in its revival, but only after seeing signs of life?
> 
> Do you give a shit?
Click to expand...



Very nice! I'll put you down as voting for #2!

I would care, but that's me personally. I give a shit about the rest of the world.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that science holds the answers to all questions but refuse to believe there are things that are unknowable.
> 
> What makes you think the current scientific way of thinking is not primitive if even correct?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's humorous... You believe that something miraculous occurred but refuse to call it a miracle.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should you or science care about that? Science is only concerned with what it can observe and measure. Anything else falls into the realm of the theologians and philosophers.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps he smoked, drank, and chased women...
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Didn't say science logic and reasoning hold all the answers. I just don't believe in superstition, religion, ghosts, angels, fortune tellers, mediums or magical thinking.

Yes miraculous. Seems like a miracle because we don't know. God of the gaps....

How come you don't attempt to answer my questions? Do they scare you?


----------



## Brynmr

RWS said:


> Your benevolent, omnipotent *God dictates all human behavior*. Thus he allowed it, didn't know about, didn't care, or doesn't exist....



According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - false.


----------



## RWS

Brynmr said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your benevolent, omnipotent *God dictates all human behavior*. Thus he allowed it, didn't know about, didn't care, or doesn't exist....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - false.
Click to expand...

According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - true

The Christian God is all-knowing and omnipotent. The fact that He allows terrible things to happen to humanity, means one of the options. I don't know how you can argue that, but I'm always open to new options. But you have to admit, those are the only real options. 

So you gotta soak that up, and step outside the box for a bit. And then maybe there are some other ideas that could help better explain stuff....


----------



## RWS

And I'm a good person to talk with about alternatives! 

I mean theology, not lifestyles...


----------



## there4eyeM

If 'God' were knowable in the ways that most people speak, there would be no 'if'.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
Click to expand...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question I proposed, and the votes I'd like to see, are based on why a benevolent, omnipotent, all-knowing "God" would let those horrors happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all you are assigning acts of men to God which is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your benevolent, omnipotent God dictates all human behavior. Thus he allowed it, didn't know about, didn't care, or doesn't exist....
Click to expand...

No.  That is a simplistic and incorrect view of reality.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
Click to expand...

What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.

You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?


----------



## Brynmr

RWS said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your benevolent, omnipotent *God dictates all human behavior*. Thus he allowed it, didn't know about, didn't care, or doesn't exist....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - true
> 
> The Christian God is all-knowing and omnipotent. The fact that He allows terrible things to happen to humanity, means one of the options. I don't know how you can argue that, but I'm always open to new options. But you have to admit, those are the only real options.
> 
> So you gotta soak that up, and step outside the box for a bit. And then maybe there are some other ideas that could help better explain stuff....
Click to expand...


I personally don't get the 'God' thing. Why create a universe where there's do much suffering. If I was God I would have created one where everyone was happy - no suffering. No brainer.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your benevolent, omnipotent *God dictates all human behavior*. Thus he allowed it, didn't know about, didn't care, or doesn't exist....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - true
> 
> The Christian God is all-knowing and omnipotent. The fact that He allows terrible things to happen to humanity, means one of the options. I don't know how you can argue that, but I'm always open to new options. But you have to admit, those are the only real options.
> 
> So you gotta soak that up, and step outside the box for a bit. And then maybe there are some other ideas that could help better explain stuff....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally don't get the 'God' thing. Why create a universe where there's do much suffering. If I was God I would have created one where everyone was happy - no suffering. No brainer.
Click to expand...

Order from chaos.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
Click to expand...

And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your benevolent, omnipotent *God dictates all human behavior*. Thus he allowed it, didn't know about, didn't care, or doesn't exist....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - true
> 
> The Christian God is all-knowing and omnipotent. The fact that He allows terrible things to happen to humanity, means one of the options. I don't know how you can argue that, but I'm always open to new options. But you have to admit, those are the only real options.
> 
> So you gotta soak that up, and step outside the box for a bit. And then maybe there are some other ideas that could help better explain stuff....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally don't get the 'God' thing. Why create a universe where there's do much suffering. If I was God I would have created one where everyone was happy - no suffering. No brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make sense.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
Click to expand...


Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?  

"The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
Click to expand...


The latest is the universe is speeding up not slowing down.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The latest is the universe is speeding up not slowing down.
Click to expand...

I know that. Does it mean it always will? Does an explosion get faster before it slows down? Could be huge distances between two universes


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The latest is the universe is speeding up not slowing down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that. Does it mean it always will? Does an explosion get faster before it slows down? Could be huge distances between two universes
Click to expand...


Don't know. Maybe know more when we understand dark energy more.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your benevolent, omnipotent *God dictates all human behavior*. Thus he allowed it, didn't know about, didn't care, or doesn't exist....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - true
> 
> The Christian God is all-knowing and omnipotent. The fact that He allows terrible things to happen to humanity, means one of the options. I don't know how you can argue that, but I'm always open to new options. But you have to admit, those are the only real options.
> 
> So you gotta soak that up, and step outside the box for a bit. And then maybe there are some other ideas that could help better explain stuff....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally don't get the 'God' thing. Why create a universe where there's do much suffering. If I was God I would have created one where everyone was happy - no suffering. No brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Why not?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
Click to expand...


I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.


----------



## ding

*In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*

I found reference to this simple, penetrating piece of wisdom – prominently displayed in our kitchen –  bracingly therapeutic during my long period of recovering my energy, especially at times when self-pity threatened to take me over.

Life requires both chaos and order. With chaos alone, nothing could take form. Order by itself shuts down creativity and ultimately life itself. Chaos and order interpenetrate at every level from the most trivial to the most profound.

Order and Chaos – a Buddhist ‘take’


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
Click to expand...







Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> *In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*



That's not _quite_ it.

Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.

That's the root - the start of all suffering.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - false.
> 
> 
> 
> According to my limited knowledge of Christianity - true
> 
> The Christian God is all-knowing and omnipotent. The fact that He allows terrible things to happen to humanity, means one of the options. I don't know how you can argue that, but I'm always open to new options. But you have to admit, those are the only real options.
> 
> So you gotta soak that up, and step outside the box for a bit. And then maybe there are some other ideas that could help better explain stuff....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally don't get the 'God' thing. Why create a universe where there's do much suffering. If I was God I would have created one where everyone was happy - no suffering. No brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...


I mean that doesn't make sense to *me*.


----------



## ding

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Do I need to list my course curriculum?


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not _quite_ it.
> 
> Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.
> 
> That's the root - the start of all suffering.
Click to expand...

Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
Click to expand...

Good one.


----------



## MaryL

Does it matter? God hides so well, it'd hard to tell whether God is real or not. Why would a loving god play games like that?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not _quite_ it.
> 
> Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.
> 
> That's the root - the start of all suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.
Click to expand...



I was just commenting on suffering - putting a more accurate point on it.

As to your explanation: it still begs the question why create a universe where the beings you created suffer? Just so they can struggle OUT of suffering? So they can become better people? That's absurd. That doesn't make any sense. Create better people. Create a universe where people already *don't* suffer. Create one where everyone is happy. Done and done.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not _quite_ it.
> 
> Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.
> 
> That's the root - the start of all suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on suffering - putting a more accurate point on it.
> 
> As to your explanation: it still begs the question why create a universe where the beings you created suffer? Just so they can struggle OUT of suffering? So they can become better people? That's absurd. That doesn't make any sense. Create better people. Create a universe where people already *don't* suffer. Create one where everyone is happy. Done and done.
Click to expand...

Do they only suffer?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not _quite_ it.
> 
> Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.
> 
> That's the root - the start of all suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on suffering - putting a more accurate point on it.
> 
> As to your explanation: it still begs the question why create a universe where the beings you created suffer? Just so they can struggle OUT of suffering? So they can become better people? That's absurd. That doesn't make any sense. Create better people. Create a universe where people already *don't* suffer. Create one where everyone is happy. Done and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they only suffer?
Click to expand...


Yes, but let's not get side tracked. Even if only _sometimes_ people suffer. Why create such a world where there is *any* suffering.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not _quite_ it.
> 
> Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.
> 
> That's the root - the start of all suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on suffering - putting a more accurate point on it.
> 
> As to your explanation: it still begs the question why create a universe where the beings you created suffer? Just so they can struggle OUT of suffering? So they can become better people? That's absurd. That doesn't make any sense. Create better people. Create a universe where people already *don't* suffer. Create one where everyone is happy. Done and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they only suffer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but let's not get side tracked. Even if only _sometimes_ people suffer. Why create such a world where there is *any* suffering.
Click to expand...

I'm not changing the subject. I don't accept that people don't have joy.  No one suffers all of the time.  The better off we have it the more skewed our perception becomes.  

Assigning acts of men to God is ridiculous. His Ways are not our ways. To suppose that there can be no God unless everything is perfect is illogical. The answer to your question is that it is not virtuous if you are made to behave virtuous. It seems to me that the crop He is growing is virtue. How do I know? Because like all stages of matter before it, consciousness and conscienceness are evolving. Subatomic particles evolved to hydrogen and helium, hydrogen and helium evolved to cosmic structure, cosmic structure evolved to all the elements and compound we see today, nonliving matter evolved to living matter and living matter evolved to beings that know and create. The final leap to be made is consciousness / conscienceness. 

Furthermore, He uses everything for our good. Good does come from bad and bad does come from good. Hardship can build character. There has never been an uncaused event. Everything is cause and effect. Goodness does rise from hardship. People do overcome adversity and actually grow from it.


----------



## BreezeWood

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not _quite_ it.
> 
> Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.
> 
> That's the root - the start of all suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on suffering - putting a more accurate point on it.
> 
> As to your explanation: it still begs the question why create a universe where the beings you created suffer? Just so they can struggle OUT of suffering? So they can become better people? That's absurd. That doesn't make any sense. Create better people. Create a universe where people already *don't* suffer. Create one where everyone is happy. Done and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they only suffer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but let's not get side tracked. Even if only _sometimes_ people suffer. Why create such a world where there is *any* suffering.
Click to expand...

.


Brynmr said:


> Why create such a world where there is *any* suffering.




the (spoken) religion contrasts paradise _as it was_ with admission after dismissal, The Garden of Eden and why the notion of a redeemer is antithetical to the stated goal of redemption. purity in completion for each individual, a Sabbath.

it's not a creation, suffering but a compromise from extinction offered by the Almighty.

.


----------



## sealybobo

The intelligence of the person have nothing to do with belief. Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? Or wishful thinking?

Lots of people choose to believe. In other words they hope it's true. They don't care that a virgin birth seems far fetched. And it doesn't bother them that there are 999 other religions out there with different miracle stories.

And how does a scientist deny micro evolution? You believe God poofed down fully grown adults to start. And fully grown giraffes and goats and chicke and snakes and birds. Is that correct? This God made us the way we are or did we crawl out of the water at one point? How does a scientist not believe in evolution?

If you believe in evolution then you only believe in a generic God and I'm cool with that


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

My last reply was in reply to your post but it looks like I didn't address it to you.

I am interested in your scientific explanation of how land animals all first got started. Did they start out as babies or adults? How did the first get here?

Now I don't know how the first life on earth got started either but I accept evolution as the most probable explanation


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ding said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I need to list my course curriculum?
Click to expand...






No.

I was questioning Sealybobo

*****SMILE*****


----------



## ding

Damaged Eagle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I need to list my course curriculum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 102121
> 
> No.
> 
> I was questioning Sealybobo
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not realize it was not directed to me.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last reply was in reply to your post but it looks like I didn't address it to you.
> 
> I am interested in your scientific explanation of how land animals all first got started. Did they start out as babies or adults? How did the first get here?
> 
> Now I don't know how the first life on earth got started either but I accept evolution as the most probable explanation
Click to expand...







No but it looks like you have it set in your mind that that's what I believe in.

I've already stated several times in this thread specifically what my beliefs are.

The thing is you can't disprove my belief that I see God around me every day.

******CHUCKLE******


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not _quite_ it.
> 
> Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.
> 
> That's the root - the start of all suffering.
> 
> 
> 
> Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on suffering - putting a more accurate point on it.
> 
> As to your explanation: it still begs the question why create a universe where the beings you created suffer? Just so they can struggle OUT of suffering? So they can become better people? That's absurd. That doesn't make any sense. Create better people. Create a universe where people already *don't* suffer. Create one where everyone is happy. Done and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they only suffer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but let's not get side tracked. Even if only _sometimes_ people suffer. Why create such a world where there is *any* suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not changing the subject. I don't accept that people don't have joy.  No one suffers all of the time.  The better off we have it the more skewed our perception becomes.
> 
> Assigning acts of men to God is ridiculous. His Ways are not our ways. To suppose that there can be no God unless everything is perfect is illogical. The answer to your question is that it is not virtuous if you are made to behave virtuous. It seems to me that the crop He is growing is virtue. How do I know? Because like all stages of matter before it, consciousness and conscienceness are evolving. Subatomic particles evolved to hydrogen and helium, hydrogen and helium evolved to cosmic structure, cosmic structure evolved to all the elements and compound we see today, nonliving matter evolved to living matter and living matter evolved to beings that know and create. The final leap to be made is consciousness / conscienceness.
> 
> Furthermore, He uses everything for our good. Good does come from bad and bad does come from good. Hardship can build character. There has never been an uncaused event. Everything is cause and effect. Goodness does rise from hardship. People do overcome adversity and actually grow from it.
Click to expand...

Since everything on earth comes from inside a star including us, a a star has a heartbeat and controls everything in our solar system, it's no wonder our ancestors worshipped the sun. Could the sun's be intelligent? Could god be staring us right in the face? We're our ancestors right to pray every night that the sun would return?

But a guy dying out in the desert would curse the sun.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on suffering - putting a more accurate point on it.
> 
> As to your explanation: it still begs the question why create a universe where the beings you created suffer? Just so they can struggle OUT of suffering? So they can become better people? That's absurd. That doesn't make any sense. Create better people. Create a universe where people already *don't* suffer. Create one where everyone is happy. Done and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they only suffer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but let's not get side tracked. Even if only _sometimes_ people suffer. Why create such a world where there is *any* suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not changing the subject. I don't accept that people don't have joy.  No one suffers all of the time.  The better off we have it the more skewed our perception becomes.
> 
> Assigning acts of men to God is ridiculous. His Ways are not our ways. To suppose that there can be no God unless everything is perfect is illogical. The answer to your question is that it is not virtuous if you are made to behave virtuous. It seems to me that the crop He is growing is virtue. How do I know? Because like all stages of matter before it, consciousness and conscienceness are evolving. Subatomic particles evolved to hydrogen and helium, hydrogen and helium evolved to cosmic structure, cosmic structure evolved to all the elements and compound we see today, nonliving matter evolved to living matter and living matter evolved to beings that know and create. The final leap to be made is consciousness / conscienceness.
> 
> Furthermore, He uses everything for our good. Good does come from bad and bad does come from good. Hardship can build character. There has never been an uncaused event. Everything is cause and effect. Goodness does rise from hardship. People do overcome adversity and actually grow from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since everything on earth comes from inside a star including us, a a star has a heartbeat and controls everything in our solar system, it's no wonder our ancestors worshipped the sun. Could the sun's be intelligent? Could god be staring us right in the face? We're our ancestors right to pray every night that the sun would return?
> 
> But a guy dying out in the desert would curse the sun.
Click to expand...

Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post


----------



## ding

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last reply was in reply to your post but it looks like I didn't address it to you.
> 
> I am interested in your scientific explanation of how land animals all first got started. Did they start out as babies or adults? How did the first get here?
> 
> Now I don't know how the first life on earth got started either but I accept evolution as the most probable explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but it looks like you have it set in your mind that that's what I believe in.
> 
> I've already stated several times in this thread specifically what my beliefs are.
> 
> The thing is you can't disprove my belief that I see God around me every day.
> 
> ******CHUCKLE******
Click to expand...

One of the all time great songs.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> I'm not changing the subject. I don't accept that people don't have joy.  No one suffers all of the time.



That's irrelevant to my query.



> The better off we have it the more skewed our perception becomes.



So everyone who's happy has skewed perceptions? That's utter nonsense.



> Assigning acts of men to God is ridiculous. His Ways are not our ways. To suppose that there can be no God unless everything is perfect is illogical.



That wasn't my point. Did God create the universe and the beings who inhabit it or didn't he? 





> The answer to your question is that it is not virtuous if you are made to behave virtuous. It seems to me that the crop He is growing is virtue.



So we're like white mice put into a maze to see how hard or how long it takes for us to figure the way out. Given your explanation, I would question God's virtue. 



> Furthermore, He uses everything for our good.



After creating a dark world for us he tosses in a little sunshine. Yippee!



> Goodness does rise from hardship. People do overcome adversity and actually grow from it.



200,000 years or overcoming adversity and little children are still having their heads chopped off. God must really be enjoying the show.  


Let me ask you. What are people who go to Heaven going to do? Will they experience suffering? Will they have to struggle? No, they won't. So why not create a Heaven to begin with? You honestly believe those heavenly beings would be less worthy or less valuable than the ones who struggled to better themselves? Consider also the price. Many, according to Christianity, will fall to Hell for all time suffering terrible torment. Your God created a world where many of his creations go to Hell. Had I created a world, no one would go to Hell and no one would suffer. All would be happy and content. I would have done it for them, not my own glorification.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not changing the subject. I don't accept that people don't have joy.  No one suffers all of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant to my query.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The better off we have it the more skewed our perception becomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So everyone who's happy has skewed perceptions? That's utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assigning acts of men to God is ridiculous. His Ways are not our ways. To suppose that there can be no God unless everything is perfect is illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't my point. Did God create the universe and the beings who inhabit it or didn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is that it is not virtuous if you are made to behave virtuous. It seems to me that the crop He is growing is virtue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're like white mice put into a maze to see how hard or how long it takes for us to figure the way out. Given your explanation, I would question God's virtue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, He uses everything for our good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After creating a dark world for us he tosses in a little sunshine. Yippee!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goodness does rise from hardship. People do overcome adversity and actually grow from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200,000 years or overcoming adversity and little children are still having their heads chopped off. God must really be enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> Let me ask you. What are people who go to Heaven going to do? Will they experience suffering? Will they have to struggle? No, they won't. So why not create a Heaven to begin with? You honestly believe those heavenly beings would be less worthy or less valuable than the ones who struggled to better themselves? Consider also the price. Many, according to Christianity, will fall to Hell for all time suffering terrible torment. Your God created a world where many of his creations go to Hell. Had I created a world, no one would go to Hell and no one would suffer. All would be happy and content. I would have done it for them, not my own glorification.
Click to expand...

Believe as you wish. I have no preference for an outcome.

The Buddha on God

[1506.04952] The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems

Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last reply was in reply to your post but it looks like I didn't address it to you.
> 
> I am interested in your scientific explanation of how land animals all first got started. Did they start out as babies or adults? How did the first get here?
> 
> Now I don't know how the first life on earth got started either but I accept evolution as the most probable explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but it looks like you have it set in your mind that that's what I believe in.
> 
> I've already stated several times in this thread specifically what my beliefs are.
> 
> The thing is you can't disprove my belief that I see God around me every day.
> 
> ******CHUCKLE******
Click to expand...

I rest my case. No scientist can believe in creation because there's no scientific way. You would have to put science away and suspended all logic.

When I believed in generic God I believed be planted the life seed that turned into all life on earth. That would make more sense.

But that would mean we're just the smartest animal on this planet. Not the strongest, fastest, we don't live the longest, we can't stand the extreme temperatures like tardigrade. 

The more you know, realize, understand the more a "God" or believing that belief matters seems less likely.

Be a good person with or without a God. You know what's right. I still have a conscience


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last reply was in reply to your post but it looks like I didn't address it to you.
> 
> I am interested in your scientific explanation of how land animals all first got started. Did they start out as babies or adults? How did the first get here?
> 
> Now I don't know how the first life on earth got started either but I accept evolution as the most probable explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but it looks like you have it set in your mind that that's what I believe in.
> 
> I've already stated several times in this thread specifically what my beliefs are.
> 
> The thing is you can't disprove my belief that I see God around me every day.
> 
> ******CHUCKLE******
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case. No scientist can believe in creation because there's no scientific way. You would have to put science away and suspended all logic.
> 
> When I believed in generic God I believed be planted the life seed that turned into all life on earth. That would make more sense.
> 
> But that would mean we're just the smartest animal on this planet. Not the strongest, fastest, we don't live the longest, we can't stand the extreme temperatures like tardigrade.
> 
> The more you know, realize, understand the more a "God" or believing that belief matters seems less likely.
> 
> Be a good person with or without a God. You know what's right. I still have a conscience
Click to expand...

Do you know where the code for the first cell came from?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last reply was in reply to your post but it looks like I didn't address it to you.
> 
> I am interested in your scientific explanation of how land animals all first got started. Did they start out as babies or adults? How did the first get here?
> 
> Now I don't know how the first life on earth got started either but I accept evolution as the most probable explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but it looks like you have it set in your mind that that's what I believe in.
> 
> I've already stated several times in this thread specifically what my beliefs are.
> 
> The thing is you can't disprove my belief that I see God around me every day.
> 
> ******CHUCKLE******
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case. No scientist can believe in creation because there's no scientific way. You would have to put science away and suspended all logic.
> 
> When I believed in generic God I believed be planted the life seed that turned into all life on earth. That would make more sense.
> 
> But that would mean we're just the smartest animal on this planet. Not the strongest, fastest, we don't live the longest, we can't stand the extreme temperatures like tardigrade.
> 
> The more you know, realize, understand the more a "God" or believing that belief matters seems less likely.
> 
> Be a good person with or without a God. You know what's right. I still have a conscience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know where the code for the first cell came from?
Click to expand...

No


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My last reply was in reply to your post but it looks like I didn't address it to you.
> 
> I am interested in your scientific explanation of how land animals all first got started. Did they start out as babies or adults? How did the first get here?
> 
> Now I don't know how the first life on earth got started either but I accept evolution as the most probable explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but it looks like you have it set in your mind that that's what I believe in.
> 
> I've already stated several times in this thread specifically what my beliefs are.
> 
> The thing is you can't disprove my belief that I see God around me every day.
> 
> ******CHUCKLE******
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case. No scientist can believe in creation because there's no scientific way. You would have to put science away and suspended all logic.
> 
> When I believed in generic God I believed be planted the life seed that turned into all life on earth. That would make more sense.
> 
> But that would mean we're just the smartest animal on this planet. Not the strongest, fastest, we don't live the longest, we can't stand the extreme temperatures like tardigrade.
> 
> The more you know, realize, understand the more a "God" or believing that belief matters seems less likely.
> 
> Be a good person with or without a God. You know what's right. I still have a conscience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know where the code for the first cell came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
Click to expand...

Me either.  No one does.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the Old and New Cosmos series 4 times each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My last reply was in reply to your post but it looks like I didn't address it to you.
> 
> I am interested in your scientific explanation of how land animals all first got started. Did they start out as babies or adults? How did the first get here?
> 
> Now I don't know how the first life on earth got started either but I accept evolution as the most probable explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but it looks like you have it set in your mind that that's what I believe in.
> 
> I've already stated several times in this thread specifically what my beliefs are.
> 
> The thing is you can't disprove my belief that I see God around me every day.
> 
> ******CHUCKLE******
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case. No scientist can believe in creation because there's no scientific way. You would have to put science away and suspended all logic.
> 
> When I believed in generic God I believed be planted the life seed that turned into all life on earth. That would make more sense.
> 
> But that would mean we're just the smartest animal on this planet. Not the strongest, fastest, we don't live the longest, we can't stand the extreme temperatures like tardigrade.
> 
> The more you know, realize, understand the more a "God" or believing that belief matters seems less likely.
> 
> Be a good person with or without a God. You know what's right. I still have a conscience
Click to expand...






Separating my belief in God from science is pretty much impossible to do considering my beliefs.....

However it seems that the science you set all your faith in could only come up with a creation theology of it's own to replace your belief in God. After that you enter the realm of the metaphysical which becomes even more abstract and borders on the theological. So while you attempt to sacrifice all who believe in God at your great alter of science why don't you answer the OP's, who happens to be me BTW, opening question.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> The Buddha on God
> 
> [1506.04952] The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems
> 
> Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post



I wouldn't advise anyone who wanted to understand Buddhism to read these links.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Buddha on God
> 
> [1506.04952] The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems
> 
> Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't advise anyone who wanted to understand Buddhism to read these links.
Click to expand...

The last two links have nothing to do with your religion. Is the reason you wouldn't advise others who wanted to understand Buddhism to read, "The Budda on God," because he believed avoiding speculation of the supernatural was a major distraction and that is what you are doing?  Maybe you could provide a link where he encouraged speculation on the supernatural.  Could you do that?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Buddha on God
> 
> [1506.04952] The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems
> 
> Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't advise anyone who wanted to understand Buddhism to read these links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last two links have nothing to do with your religion. Is the reason you wouldn't advise others who wanted to understand Buddhism to read, "The Budda on God," because he believed avoiding speculation of the supernatural was a major distraction and that is what you are doing?  Maybe you could provide a link where he encouraged speculation on the supernatural.  Could you do that?
Click to expand...


No, nothing to do with the belief of a creator God. The info on Buddhism is misleading with factual errors.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you study physics, astronomy, and math at college as your major?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My last reply was in reply to your post but it looks like I didn't address it to you.
> 
> I am interested in your scientific explanation of how land animals all first got started. Did they start out as babies or adults? How did the first get here?
> 
> Now I don't know how the first life on earth got started either but I accept evolution as the most probable explanation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but it looks like you have it set in your mind that that's what I believe in.
> 
> I've already stated several times in this thread specifically what my beliefs are.
> 
> The thing is you can't disprove my belief that I see God around me every day.
> 
> ******CHUCKLE******
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case. No scientist can believe in creation because there's no scientific way. You would have to put science away and suspended all logic.
> 
> When I believed in generic God I believed be planted the life seed that turned into all life on earth. That would make more sense.
> 
> But that would mean we're just the smartest animal on this planet. Not the strongest, fastest, we don't live the longest, we can't stand the extreme temperatures like tardigrade.
> 
> The more you know, realize, understand the more a "God" or believing that belief matters seems less likely.
> 
> Be a good person with or without a God. You know what's right. I still have a conscience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know where the code for the first cell came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
Click to expand...


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Buddha on God
> 
> [1506.04952] The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems
> 
> Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't advise anyone who wanted to understand Buddhism to read these links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last two links have nothing to do with your religion. Is the reason you wouldn't advise others who wanted to understand Buddhism to read, "The Budda on God," because he believed avoiding speculation of the supernatural was a major distraction and that is what you are doing?  Maybe you could provide a link where he encouraged speculation on the supernatural.  Could you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, nothing to do with the belief of a creator God. The info on Buddhism is misleading with factual errors.
Click to expand...

Ok, so what did Buddha say about speculation on the supernatural?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Buddha on God
> 
> [1506.04952] The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems
> 
> Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't advise anyone who wanted to understand Buddhism to read these links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last two links have nothing to do with your religion. Is the reason you wouldn't advise others who wanted to understand Buddhism to read, "The Budda on God," because he believed avoiding speculation of the supernatural was a major distraction and that is what you are doing?  Maybe you could provide a link where he encouraged speculation on the supernatural.  Could you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, nothing to do with the belief of a creator God. The info on Buddhism is misleading with factual errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so what did Buddha say about speculation on the supernatural?
Click to expand...


To my knowledge the Buddha never said anything about a creator God.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Buddha on God
> 
> [1506.04952] The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems
> 
> Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't advise anyone who wanted to understand Buddhism to read these links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last two links have nothing to do with your religion. Is the reason you wouldn't advise others who wanted to understand Buddhism to read, "The Budda on God," because he believed avoiding speculation of the supernatural was a major distraction and that is what you are doing?  Maybe you could provide a link where he encouraged speculation on the supernatural.  Could you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, nothing to do with the belief of a creator God. The info on Buddhism is misleading with factual errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so what did Buddha say about speculation on the supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To my knowledge the Buddha never said anything about a creator God.
Click to expand...

Why did you change the question?  Did Buddha encourage  speculation on the supernatural?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Why did you change the question?  Did Buddha encourage  speculation on the supernatural?



I thought that was what you were asking. What's your point?


----------



## there4eyeM

Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?


----------



## there4eyeM

Buddha's was a transcendent message, not one likely to be communicated here.


----------



## PK1

*If God doesn't exist...*

I'm not losing any sleep over this stupid phrase.


----------



## sealybobo

there4eyeM said:


> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?



Aren't adults who believe in god similar to children who have an invisible friend?  What harm can come from someone who believes they have an invisible friend?  Leave them alone if it provides them comfort.  

OR, we could recognize this is not a good way for adults to think.  People who are gullible are very easily fooled.  A great example of this is our horseshit government.  How smart of a people can we be?  And keep in mind the vast majority of us believe in god.  Is there a connection?  I think so.  

And even religious people agree with me that religious people are stupid.  Ask any Christian what they think about the muslim or mormon religion.  Is it real or man made up?  Are the people who follow those religions gullible?  If you are a christian you must believe they are being conned with a lie.


----------



## sealybobo

PK1 said:


> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> I'm not losing any sleep over this stupid phrase.


And you are finally free to masturbate thinking about your neighbors wife without someone watching.  

I never understood how religious people can masturbate or think bad thoughts if they truly believed a god was watching them.  Since most religious people are constant sinners maybe most of them really truly deep down don't believe.  If they did they'd be much better people.  Lucky for us they believe in god because can you imagine the shit they would do if they didn't believe in god?


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> I'm not losing any sleep over this stupid phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are finally free to masturbate thinking about your neighbors wife without someone watching.
> 
> I never understood how religious people can masturbate or think bad thoughts if they truly believed a god was watching them.  Since most religious people are constant sinners maybe most of them really truly deep down don't believe.  If they did they'd be much better people.  Lucky for us they believe in god because can you imagine the shit they would do if they didn't believe in god?
Click to expand...


Many don't believe in "God" and don't do this "shit" you're suggesting. I don't.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> I'm not losing any sleep over this stupid phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are finally free to masturbate thinking about your neighbors wife without someone watching.
> 
> I never understood how religious people can masturbate or think bad thoughts if they truly believed a god was watching them.  Since most religious people are constant sinners maybe most of them really truly deep down don't believe.  If they did they'd be much better people.  Lucky for us they believe in god because can you imagine the shit they would do if they didn't believe in god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many don't believe in "God" and don't do this "shit" you're suggesting. I don't.
Click to expand...


You've never wacked it to your neighbors hot wife?


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> Lucky for us they believe in god because can you imagine the shit they would do if they didn't believe in god?


.

in the latter case or the former as well placing god or no god before gov't as their "due" selfrighteousness as rightwing militants is especially disturbing. the family values twist religion enshrines at the expense of society as a whole.

.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> You've never wacked it to your neighbors hot wife?



Not when your significant other looks like this.


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?


No


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you change the question?  Did Buddha encourage  speculation on the supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was what you were asking. What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point was to ask you the question did Buddha encourage speculation on the supernatural?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you change the question?  Did Buddha encourage  speculation on the supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was what you were asking. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was to ask you the question did Buddha encourage speculation on the supernatural?
Click to expand...


Yes I know but what's your point in the asking? What are you driving at?


----------



## there4eyeM

ding said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?
> 
> 
> 
> No
Click to expand...

Then why did they?


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why did they?
Click to expand...

They didn't.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you change the question?  Did Buddha encourage  speculation on the supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was what you were asking. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was to ask you the question did Buddha encourage speculation on the supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I know but what's your point in the asking? What are you driving at?
Click to expand...

Nothing.


----------



## there4eyeM

ding said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't.
Click to expand...

Definitely their creation.


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definitely their creation.
Click to expand...

I can see that it is important to you to believe that.


----------



## there4eyeM

No belief involved, simple deduction.


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> No belief involved, simple deduction.


Call it what you like. It is important to you.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never wacked it to your neighbors hot wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when your significant other looks like this.
> View attachment 102163
Click to expand...

Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never wacked it to your neighbors hot wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when your significant other looks like this.
> View attachment 102163
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
Click to expand...

Probably the same guy who doesn't realize how great life is because he has become desensitized to it.  You know the type, right?  The one's who only see the bad and can't see the good if it slapped them across their stupid ass faces.


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never wacked it to your neighbors hot wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when your significant other looks like this.
> View attachment 102163
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
Click to expand...

.


sealybobo said:


> Its better than nothing ...




is that a joke ...


do think she is really their significant other ?

.


----------



## ding

Speak of the devil.

If God doesn't exist...


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven



Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never wacked it to your neighbors hot wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when your significant other looks like this.
> View attachment 102163
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably the same guy who doesn't realize how great life is because he has become desensitized to it.  You know the type, right?  The one's who only see the bad and can't see the good if it slapped them across their stupid ass faces.
Click to expand...

Always want what they don't have. Not me. I'm grateful. 

I understand why people are negative because life is short and sometimes hard. Despite how good your life is its still too short. Never enough time. But I remind myself all the things that had to occur for me to have been born. And to have lived 46 good years. Very lucky even if there isn't an afterlife. My parents could have had 364 different kids the year I was born and they could have had 6 other kids but they only had us two. Lucky us.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't adults who believe in god similar to children who have an invisible friend?  What harm can come from someone who believes they have an invisible friend?  Leave them alone if it provides them comfort.
> 
> OR, we could recognize this is not a good way for adults to think.  People who are gullible are very easily fooled.  A great example of this is our horseshit government.  How smart of a people can we be?  And keep in mind the vast majority of us believe in god.  Is there a connection?  I think so.
> 
> And even religious people agree with me that religious people are stupid.  Ask any Christian what they think about the muslim or mormon religion.  Is it real or man made up?  Are the people who follow those religions gullible?  If you are a christian you must believe they are being conned with a lie.
Click to expand...







Yet the best you can do is hurl insults at those who believe in God while avoiding any direct questioning of your own metaphilosophical theology.

Recent developments suggest that at the start of the universal big bang the speed of light was much faster than the constant that we assume it is today. Will it be slower tomorrow? Are Newton's Laws irrefutable? Why does the EM drive appear to work even though it appears to violate the conservation of mass and energy?

You can't even be sure that the universe existed a nanosecond ago because we all might be part of some giant SIM program that someone called God started up when he hit the switch to play.

What makes you any better than the ones you criticize?

While I'm positive God exists.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know doesn't mean a miracle occured. That's such a primitive unscientific way of thinking.
> 
> No, as a rational person because I can't explain something that doesn't mean a miracle occured.  Something amazing and miraculous occured that's for sure.
> 
> I wonder what was before the big bang? That too is another unknowable thing. Are there other universes? What's beyond our universe?
> 
> So what if a God doesn't exist? What if time space and universes are eternal? They must be. If not what did God do before our universe?
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
Click to expand...


Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...


----------



## RWS

"God will save us!!!!", as we drive off a cliff....


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not _quite_ it.
> 
> Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.
> 
> That's the root - the start of all suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on suffering - putting a more accurate point on it.
> 
> As to your explanation: it still begs the question why create a universe where the beings you created suffer? Just so they can struggle OUT of suffering? So they can become better people? That's absurd. That doesn't make any sense. Create better people. Create a universe where people already *don't* suffer. Create one where everyone is happy. Done and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they only suffer?
Click to expand...


Mostly. Because "God" is a really bad video game player. 

He has had eternity to perfect his skillz, and he lets savagery happen on a daily basis. Even in his own church!


----------



## RWS

So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game. 

We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.

We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?


----------



## RWS

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never wacked it to your neighbors hot wife?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when your significant other looks like this.
> View attachment 102163
Click to expand...


THAT..... is God....


----------



## RWS

I'll believe whatever the fuck she wants me to believe!

As long as I get a piece...

That is religion, in a simple grunt-like thought...


----------



## hobelim

RWS said:


> I'll believe whatever the fuck she wants me to believe!
> 
> As long as I get a piece...
> 
> That is religion, in a simple grunt-like thought...


  lol....Has it been a while since you went on a date romeo?


----------



## Wyatt earp

pinqy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I know, no atheist in Fox holes and no one I ever heard of on their death bed say I pray to nothing for just one last breath
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of atheists in foxholes.  I was one.
Click to expand...



And I dated her in the late 1980s after she broke up with my good friend Tom


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
Click to expand...

Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.


----------



## RWS

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll believe whatever the fuck she wants me to believe!
> 
> As long as I get a piece...
> 
> That is religion, in a simple grunt-like thought...
> 
> 
> 
> lol....Has it been a while since you went on a date romeo?
Click to expand...


Do you normally date women like that?

If so, you are my God! 

If not, i used to many times... so I know what I'm talking about... 

I wouldn't give in to the religion, but in the final case, I'm raising two Catholic daughters on my own. It's a hard topic... I promised to raise them by their mother's religion. So I have to eat my words a lot.

You have to understand, I love Jesus!!! I think the words that are written about him, about how he supposedly lived his life, and the love he wanted to spread... is the way the world should be! The same with Gandhi or Mother Theresa! That's the way to live your life!

I simply don't believe in the supernatural side of it... I think that's totally bogus and used as a money-making machine.

Good people occur naturally, and in abundance. They don't need a supernatural being to make them good. It's a part of natural selection.

The bogus belief in supernatural beings, make people follow very baaaad people.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't adults who believe in god similar to children who have an invisible friend?  What harm can come from someone who believes they have an invisible friend?  Leave them alone if it provides them comfort.
> 
> OR, we could recognize this is not a good way for adults to think.  People who are gullible are very easily fooled.  A great example of this is our horseshit government.  How smart of a people can we be?  And keep in mind the vast majority of us believe in god.  Is there a connection?  I think so.
> 
> And even religious people agree with me that religious people are stupid.  Ask any Christian what they think about the muslim or mormon religion.  Is it real or man made up?  Are the people who follow those religions gullible?  If you are a christian you must believe they are being conned with a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 102265
> 
> Yet the best you can do is hurl insults at those who believe in God while avoiding any direct questioning of your own metaphilosophical theology.
> 
> Recent developments suggest that at the start of the universal big bang the speed of light was much faster than the constant that we assume it is today. Will it be slower tomorrow? Are Newton's Laws irrefutable? Why does the EM drive appear to work even though it appears to violate the conservation of mass and energy?
> 
> You can't even be sure that the universe existed a nanosecond ago because we all might be part of some giant SIM program that someone called God started up when he hit the switch to play.
> 
> What makes you any better than the ones you criticize?
> 
> While I'm positive God exists.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

Because you are stupid for being certain about something that is highly questionable.

It's the stupidity that comes with your certainty that bugs me


----------



## RWS

And my daughters are quite aware of that now.

I don't have to lie anymore...


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't adults who believe in god similar to children who have an invisible friend?  What harm can come from someone who believes they have an invisible friend?  Leave them alone if it provides them comfort.
> 
> OR, we could recognize this is not a good way for adults to think.  People who are gullible are very easily fooled.  A great example of this is our horseshit government.  How smart of a people can we be?  And keep in mind the vast majority of us believe in god.  Is there a connection?  I think so.
> 
> And even religious people agree with me that religious people are stupid.  Ask any Christian what they think about the muslim or mormon religion.  Is it real or man made up?  Are the people who follow those religions gullible?  If you are a christian you must believe they are being conned with a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 102265
> 
> Yet the best you can do is hurl insults at those who believe in God while avoiding any direct questioning of your own metaphilosophical theology.
> 
> Recent developments suggest that at the start of the universal big bang the speed of light was much faster than the constant that we assume it is today. Will it be slower tomorrow? Are Newton's Laws irrefutable? Why does the EM drive appear to work even though it appears to violate the conservation of mass and energy?
> 
> You can't even be sure that the universe existed a nanosecond ago because we all might be part of some giant SIM program that someone called God started up when he hit the switch to play.
> 
> What makes you any better than the ones you criticize?
> 
> While I'm positive God exists.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

You're just mad because I made you realize you're just as stupid as a Mormon or Muslim. They too are certain God exists too but look at the reasons they believe. Same reasons you believe. They have magic underwear and you have virgin births and talking snakes.

My insults are designed to make it clear how stupid you're being. It's like smacking someone who's histerical. I don't mean to hurt you, just wake you up.

The best I can do is point out you're illogical


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
Click to expand...

The lady who survived the black church shooting said if dillan roof doesn't get the death penalty then he will be visited every night by 9 angels talking about Jesus. Oh brother. And she looked so sure if herself. I suppose that lie provides her comfort.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
Click to expand...


 Compassionate caring or giving to others.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
Click to expand...

That's good because I don't build cars.  

happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compassionate caring or giving to others.
Click to expand...

Good ones. I wish being kind were addicting and contagous. Where I do something nice for someone and it feels so good I have to run out and do it again ASAP. And the people I do something nice for turn around and do something nice for someone else and they get addicted and so in till no one gets bullied killed or raped ever again.

How come we aren't more compassionate? If it makes us feel so good why do we do it so seldom?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
Click to expand...

But matter existed before consciousness.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> "God will save us!!!!", as we drive off a cliff....


Actually He won't and you are.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But matter existed before consciousness.
Click to expand...

There are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. We don't know what happened before that.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
Click to expand...

Die to self.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In essence, the Buddhist view is that suffering is caused by wishing for things to be other than they are.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not _quite_ it.
> 
> Suffering (all 3 types) are caused by ignorance of self grasping. Self grasping is the misconception that the 'I' exists inherently. From this misconception arises the misconception of all phenomena as existing inherently.
> 
> That's the root - the start of all suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Order from chaos is more than suffering. Sure suffering is part of it. Do you believe that good can come from bad?   Do you believe that lessons can come from mistakes?  Do you believe that excellence can come from competition?  Those are part of it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was just commenting on suffering - putting a more accurate point on it.
> 
> As to your explanation: it still begs the question why create a universe where the beings you created suffer? Just so they can struggle OUT of suffering? So they can become better people? That's absurd. That doesn't make any sense. Create better people. Create a universe where people already *don't* suffer. Create one where everyone is happy. Done and done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they only suffer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly. Because "God" is a really bad video game player.
> 
> He has had eternity to perfect his skillz, and he lets savagery happen on a daily basis. Even in his own church!
Click to expand...

Basically you have just admitted that YOU mostly suffer.


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> And my daughters are quite aware of that now.
> 
> I don't have to lie anymore...


My nephews are too young. 11 and 14. Their dad would kill me if I ruined the brainwashing.

I told them myone Arab buddy is an atheist and he said, "then I don't like him", so I don't want my nephews to not like me. But I defended being an atheist. Subtly. I asked him if he believes Islam. He said no. I said well should they not like you?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Die to self.
Click to expand...

Huh? Is that Shakespeare?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Die to self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Is that Shakespeare?
Click to expand...

No.  It is a common theme to all religions and a key to happiness and success.  It really is the only way to see reality and sharpen one's intelligence.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?


That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compassionate caring or giving to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good ones. I wish being kind were addicting and contagous. Where I do something nice for someone and it feels so good I have to run out and do it again ASAP. And the people I do something nice for turn around and do something nice for someone else and they get addicted and so in till no one gets bullied killed or raped ever again.
> 
> How come we aren't more compassionate? If it makes us feel so good why do we do it so seldom?
Click to expand...


Not sure you'll like the answer but it goes like this:

Because we are saturated in ignorance and heavily contaminated with delusions such as lust, greed and anger. The 'ignorance' I'm referring to is the misconception of our true nature. Like how we conceive all phenomena, we conceive ourselves as existing inherently. This means the 'I' we identify as being out true selves and seen to be real is a misconception. It doesn't actually exist. This ignorance is the root cause of all our unhappiness and through habit we are chained to it.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compassionate caring or giving to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good ones. I wish being kind were addicting and contagous. Where I do something nice for someone and it feels so good I have to run out and do it again ASAP. And the people I do something nice for turn around and do something nice for someone else and they get addicted and so in till no one gets bullied killed or raped ever again.
> 
> How come we aren't more compassionate? If it makes us feel so good why do we do it so seldom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure you'll like the answer but it goes like this:
> 
> Because we are saturated in ignorance and heavily contaminated with delusions such as lust, greed and anger. The 'ignorance' I'm referring to is the misconception of our true nature. Like how we conceive all phenomena, we conceive ourselves as existing inherently. This means the 'I' we identify as being out true selves and seen to be real is a misconception. It doesn't actually exist. This ignorance is the root cause of all our unhappiness and through habit we are chained to it.
Click to expand...

What is our true nature?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> 
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compassionate caring or giving to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good ones. I wish being kind were addicting and contagous. Where I do something nice for someone and it feels so good I have to run out and do it again ASAP. And the people I do something nice for turn around and do something nice for someone else and they get addicted and so in till no one gets bullied killed or raped ever again.
> 
> How come we aren't more compassionate? If it makes us feel so good why do we do it so seldom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure you'll like the answer but it goes like this:
> 
> Because we are saturated in ignorance and heavily contaminated with delusions such as lust, greed and anger. The 'ignorance' I'm referring to is the misconception of our true nature. Like how we conceive all phenomena, we conceive ourselves as existing inherently. This means the 'I' we identify as being out true selves and seen to be real is a misconception. It doesn't actually exist. This ignorance is the root cause of all our unhappiness and through habit we are chained to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is our true nature?
Click to expand...


Emptiness, otherwise known as Buddha nature.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compassionate caring or giving to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good ones. I wish being kind were addicting and contagous. Where I do something nice for someone and it feels so good I have to run out and do it again ASAP. And the people I do something nice for turn around and do something nice for someone else and they get addicted and so in till no one gets bullied killed or raped ever again.
> 
> How come we aren't more compassionate? If it makes us feel so good why do we do it so seldom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure you'll like the answer but it goes like this:
> 
> Because we are saturated in ignorance and heavily contaminated with delusions such as lust, greed and anger. The 'ignorance' I'm referring to is the misconception of our true nature. Like how we conceive all phenomena, we conceive ourselves as existing inherently. This means the 'I' we identify as being out true selves and seen to be real is a misconception. It doesn't actually exist. This ignorance is the root cause of all our unhappiness and through habit we are chained to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is our true nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emptiness, otherwise known as Buddha nature.
Click to expand...

Can you be a little more specific?  You know... can you put that in practical terms?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compassionate caring or giving to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Good ones. I wish being kind were addicting and contagous. Where I do something nice for someone and it feels so good I have to run out and do it again ASAP. And the people I do something nice for turn around and do something nice for someone else and they get addicted and so in till no one gets bullied killed or raped ever again.
> 
> How come we aren't more compassionate? If it makes us feel so good why do we do it so seldom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure you'll like the answer but it goes like this:
> 
> Because we are saturated in ignorance and heavily contaminated with delusions such as lust, greed and anger. The 'ignorance' I'm referring to is the misconception of our true nature. Like how we conceive all phenomena, we conceive ourselves as existing inherently. This means the 'I' we identify as being out true selves and seen to be real is a misconception. It doesn't actually exist. This ignorance is the root cause of all our unhappiness and through habit we are chained to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is our true nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emptiness, otherwise known as Buddha nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you be a little more specific?  You know... can you put that in practical terms?
Click to expand...

He's trying to say that religion makes people depressed.


----------



## rightwinger

bear513 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I know, no atheist in Fox holes and no one I ever heard of on their death bed say I pray to nothing for just one last breath
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of atheists in foxholes.  I was one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I dated her in the late 1980s after she broke up with my good friend Tom
Click to expand...


Every Christian, in the instant before they die thinks the same thing.........

SHIT!  I wasted all those Sundays, I want my money back


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compassionate caring or giving to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Good ones. I wish being kind were addicting and contagous. Where I do something nice for someone and it feels so good I have to run out and do it again ASAP. And the people I do something nice for turn around and do something nice for someone else and they get addicted and so in till no one gets bullied killed or raped ever again.
> 
> How come we aren't more compassionate? If it makes us feel so good why do we do it so seldom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure you'll like the answer but it goes like this:
> 
> Because we are saturated in ignorance and heavily contaminated with delusions such as lust, greed and anger. The 'ignorance' I'm referring to is the misconception of our true nature. Like how we conceive all phenomena, we conceive ourselves as existing inherently. This means the 'I' we identify as being out true selves and seen to be real is a misconception. It doesn't actually exist. This ignorance is the root cause of all our unhappiness and through habit we are chained to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is our true nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emptiness, otherwise known as Buddha nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you be a little more specific?  You know... can you put that in practical terms?
Click to expand...


Sure.

Emptiness isn't nothingness. It's merely the lack of inherent existence. Normally see ourselves and things existing as they appear, which is solidly existing right there in their collection of parts. Like a house - a house thingy, right there like we can point to it. But no such house exists and no such inherently existing 'me' exists either. Because we think it does, we cherish it greatly. We cling to this inherently existing 'I' for personal gain or for fear of harm, loss, change etc. This self cherishing causes us to act in ways that leads to unhappiness.

This is nutshell stuff. Volumes have been written about this topic so it's difficult to explain in a few paragraphs.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good ones. I wish being kind were addicting and contagous. Where I do something nice for someone and it feels so good I have to run out and do it again ASAP. And the people I do something nice for turn around and do something nice for someone else and they get addicted and so in till no one gets bullied killed or raped ever again.
> 
> How come we aren't more compassionate? If it makes us feel so good why do we do it so seldom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure you'll like the answer but it goes like this:
> 
> Because we are saturated in ignorance and heavily contaminated with delusions such as lust, greed and anger. The 'ignorance' I'm referring to is the misconception of our true nature. Like how we conceive all phenomena, we conceive ourselves as existing inherently. This means the 'I' we identify as being out true selves and seen to be real is a misconception. It doesn't actually exist. This ignorance is the root cause of all our unhappiness and through habit we are chained to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is our true nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emptiness, otherwise known as Buddha nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you be a little more specific?  You know... can you put that in practical terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Emptiness isn't nothingness. It's merely the lack of inherent existence. Normally see ourselves and things existing as they appear, which is solidly existing right there in their collection of parts. Like a house - a house thingy, right there like we can point to it. But no such house exists and no such inherent 'me' exists either. Because we think it does, we cherish it greatly. We cling to this inherently existing 'I' for personal gain or for fear of harm, loss, change etc. This self cherishing causes us to act in ways that leads to unhappiness.
> 
> This is nutshell stuff. Volumes have been written about this topic so it's difficult to explain in a few paragraphs.
Click to expand...

So you are saying die to self?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> So you are saying die to self?



No. The trick is to realize the self's true nature and destroy the misconception.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> So you are saying die to self?



The very thing you think must die never existed to begin with.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying die to self?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The trick is to realize the self's true nature and destroy the misconception.
Click to expand...

I see.  Our true nature is nothingness and we have to destroy the part of us that keeps us from seeing that, but it isn't our "self" that is keeping us from seeing our true nature.  Do I have that right?  Can you be a little more specific about which part of us we must destroy to see our true nature?  And after we see our true nature what will happen?


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying die to self?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very thing you think must die never existed to begin with.
Click to expand...

How can you destroy something that never existed?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying die to self?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The trick is to realize the self's true nature and destroy the misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  Our true nature is nothingness
Click to expand...


No. Merely the lack of existing inherently.




> and we have to destroy the part of us that keeps us from seeing that, but it isn't our "self" that is keeping us from seeing our true nature.  Do I have that right?



We have to see that our conception of self is mistaken.




> Can you be a little more specific about which part of us we must destroy to see our true nature?  And after we see our true nature what will happen?



Once we are able to see through our misconception, and see our true nature, our minds mix with this nature like pure water poured into pure water and we experience bliss and happiness. 

This of course, isn't easy.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> How can you destroy something that never existed?



We're not trying to destroy an inherently existing self. No need to destroy something that never existed. We're destroying (getting rid of - seeing through etc) our misconception of how we exist.


----------



## Mudda

What do you mean "IF" god doesn't exist. I didn't know that there was ever a consensus that he ever did exist.


----------



## Mudda

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you destroy something that never existed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not trying to destroy an inherently existing self. No need to destroy something that never existed. We're destroying (getting rid of - seeing through etc) our misconception of how we exist.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Bry himself even understands his own religion properly.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying die to self?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The trick is to realize the self's true nature and destroy the misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  Our true nature is nothingness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Merely the lack of existing inherently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have to destroy the part of us that keeps us from seeing that, but it isn't our "self" that is keeping us from seeing our true nature.  Do I have that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to see that our conception of self is mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you be a little more specific about which part of us we must destroy to see our true nature?  And after we see our true nature what will happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once we are able to see through our misconception, and see our true nature, our minds mix with this nature like pure water poured into pure water and we experience bliss and happiness.
> 
> This of course, isn't easy.
Click to expand...

Where does this lack of existing inherently (i.e. misconception)  reside?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying die to self?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The trick is to realize the self's true nature and destroy the misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  Our true nature is nothingness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Merely the lack of existing inherently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have to destroy the part of us that keeps us from seeing that, but it isn't our "self" that is keeping us from seeing our true nature.  Do I have that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to see that our conception of self is mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you be a little more specific about which part of us we must destroy to see our true nature?  And after we see our true nature what will happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once we are able to see through our misconception, and see our true nature, our minds mix with this nature like pure water poured into pure water and we experience bliss and happiness.
> 
> This of course, isn't easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does this lack of existing inherently (i.e. misconception)  reside?
Click to expand...


The 2 are separate things. The _lack of existing inherently_ is Emptiness. This emptiness is the true nature of everything and btw is a permanent. Misconception is just that and exists in the mind.


----------



## Brynmr

Very good books on the topic of Emptiness.


https://www.amazon.com/New-Heart-Wi...sr=1-10&keywords=kelsang+gyatso&tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.amazon.com/Emptiness-Yo...watch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=&tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.amazon.com/Meditation-E...c=1&refRID=M65TNCJ57EJVTZ13XQ63&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying die to self?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The trick is to realize the self's true nature and destroy the misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  Our true nature is nothingness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Merely the lack of existing inherently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have to destroy the part of us that keeps us from seeing that, but it isn't our "self" that is keeping us from seeing our true nature.  Do I have that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to see that our conception of self is mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you be a little more specific about which part of us we must destroy to see our true nature?  And after we see our true nature what will happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once we are able to see through our misconception, and see our true nature, our minds mix with this nature like pure water poured into pure water and we experience bliss and happiness.
> 
> This of course, isn't easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does this lack of existing inherently (i.e. misconception)  reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2 are separate things. The _lack of existing inherently_ is Emptiness. This emptiness is the true nature of everything and btw is a permanent. Misconception is just that and exists in the mind.
Click to expand...

So basically you are saying that your religion is based on the psychology of mind, right?


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> So basically you are saying that your religion is based on the psychology of mind, right?



I see Buddhism as a path to happiness. That's what it is. The study of wisdom (Emptiness) is one of the 2 wings that give it flight. The other being compassion. 

Meditations on Emptiness bear positive results for our life experience and ultimately lead to Enlightenment.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you are saying that your religion is based on the psychology of mind, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Buddhism as a path to happiness. That's what it is. The study of wisdom (Emptiness) is one of the 2 wings that give it flight. The other being compassion.
> 
> Meditations on Emptiness bear positive results for our life experience and ultimately lead to Enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Sure but the essence of it is psychology, right?


----------



## ding

psy·chol·o·gy
sīˈkäləjē/
_noun_

the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.
synonyms: study of the mind, science of the mind
"a degree in psychology"
the mental characteristics or attitude of a person or group.
plural noun: *psychologies*
"the psychology of Americans in the 1920s"
synonyms: mindset, mind, mental processes, thought processes, way of thinking, cast of mind, mentality, persona, psyche, (mental) attitude(s), makeup, character; 
_informal_what makes someone tick
"the psychology of the motorist"
the mental and emotional factors governing a situation or activity.
"the psychology of interpersonal relationships"


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did 'God' create humans so they could invent 'Him'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't adults who believe in god similar to children who have an invisible friend?  What harm can come from someone who believes they have an invisible friend?  Leave them alone if it provides them comfort.
> 
> OR, we could recognize this is not a good way for adults to think.  People who are gullible are very easily fooled.  A great example of this is our horseshit government.  How smart of a people can we be?  And keep in mind the vast majority of us believe in god.  Is there a connection?  I think so.
> 
> And even religious people agree with me that religious people are stupid.  Ask any Christian what they think about the muslim or mormon religion.  Is it real or man made up?  Are the people who follow those religions gullible?  If you are a christian you must believe they are being conned with a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 102265
> 
> Yet the best you can do is hurl insults at those who believe in God while avoiding any direct questioning of your own metaphilosophical theology.
> 
> Recent developments suggest that at the start of the universal big bang the speed of light was much faster than the constant that we assume it is today. Will it be slower tomorrow? Are Newton's Laws irrefutable? Why does the EM drive appear to work even though it appears to violate the conservation of mass and energy?
> 
> You can't even be sure that the universe existed a nanosecond ago because we all might be part of some giant SIM program that someone called God started up when he hit the switch to play.
> 
> What makes you any better than the ones you criticize?
> 
> While I'm positive God exists.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just mad because I made you realize you're just as stupid as a Mormon or Muslim. They too are certain God exists too but look at the reasons they believe. Same reasons you believe. They have magic underwear and you have virgin births and talking snakes.
> 
> My insults are designed to make it clear how stupid you're being. It's like smacking someone who's histerical. I don't mean to hurt you, just wake you up.
> 
> The best I can do is point out you're illogical
Click to expand...







At least I'm not as stupid as someone who thinks they can insult people about believing in God but apparently doesn't know much of anything about science which they claim holds the answers to the OP question.

It takes a special kind of moron to think that science disproves God and pretty much not know a thing about science itself.

******CHUCKLE******


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a hot woman and I'll show you a man whos sick of banging her. Its better than nothing but to some guy that girls only an 8. To us she's an eleven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Die to self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Is that Shakespeare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It is a common theme to all religions and a key to happiness and success.  It really is the only way to see reality and sharpen one's intelligence.
Click to expand...

No it's not.  I just looked it up and it's a Christian thing.

What does the Bible mean by "dying to self"?

The concept of “dying to self” is found throughout the New Testament. It expresses the true essence of the Christian life, in which we take up our cross and follow Christ. Dying to self is part of being born again; the old self dies and the new self comes to life (John 3:3–7). Not only are Christians born again when we come to salvation, but we also continue dying to self as part of the process of sanctification. As such, dying to self is both a one-time event and a lifelong process. 

It's little stuff like this that bugs me.  It's cult talk.  You take up your cross?  How so?  

And what if I like my old self?  

But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.


----------



## sealybobo

Mudda said:


> What do you mean "IF" god doesn't exist. I didn't know that there was ever a consensus that he ever did exist.



Do you know who's words I live my life by?  Shakespeare

_“This above all: *to thine own self be true*_

_
_


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying die to self?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The trick is to realize the self's true nature and destroy the misconception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  Our true nature is nothingness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Merely the lack of existing inherently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have to destroy the part of us that keeps us from seeing that, but it isn't our "self" that is keeping us from seeing our true nature.  Do I have that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to see that our conception of self is mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you be a little more specific about which part of us we must destroy to see our true nature?  And after we see our true nature what will happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once we are able to see through our misconception, and see our true nature, our minds mix with this nature like pure water poured into pure water and we experience bliss and happiness.
> 
> This of course, isn't easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does this lack of existing inherently (i.e. misconception)  reside?
Click to expand...

In his bank account, he's broke.


----------



## Mudda

If god didn't exist then the world would be exactly as is it today.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> But I shouldn't make fun. The moral of this message is good. You can become a better person. I get it. You can always change. You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.



During the times when it was written there was no such thing as freedom of speech.  You could not speak openly about religious frauds, corrupt leaders,  or those who practiced sorcery, what you would think of as mind control, except indirectly by using metaphors such as talking snakes, donkeys,  demons from hell, etc., without you and your entire family or tribe being summarily put to death. It is still exactly like that in many places around the world to this day.

It was intentionally written that way to go over the heads of those who did not think very deeply about anything which was the vast majority of people back then.


Still works like a charm.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Sure but the essence of it is psychology, right?



The Western concept of psychology doesn't really fit here because it implies an objective reality - an existent reality. It makes a clear distinction a duality. Why are you asking?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same applies to good food, good movies, good anything. We Buddhists call it changing suffering. If banging hot girls created true happiness then the more you did it the happier you'd be.
> 
> 
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Die to self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Is that Shakespeare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It is a common theme to all religions and a key to happiness and success.  It really is the only way to see reality and sharpen one's intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not.  I just looked it up and it's a Christian thing.
> 
> What does the Bible mean by "dying to self"?
> 
> The concept of “dying to self” is found throughout the New Testament. It expresses the true essence of the Christian life, in which we take up our cross and follow Christ. Dying to self is part of being born again; the old self dies and the new self comes to life (John 3:3–7). Not only are Christians born again when we come to salvation, but we also continue dying to self as part of the process of sanctification. As such, dying to self is both a one-time event and a lifelong process.
> 
> It's little stuff like this that bugs me.  It's cult talk.  You take up your cross?  How so?
> 
> And what if I like my old self?
> 
> But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
Click to expand...

Of course it is a Christian thing and despite what BRNMR claims it is a Buddhist thing too and it is a common to all religions.  Dying to self means to not have a preference for an outcome or the consequences to yourself for any given event.  It is the only way to be objective and see reality.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  Your call.  I couldn't care less.  If you don't want to believe me, don't.  I couldn't care less about that either.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices, this choice is no different.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but the essence of it is psychology, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Western concept of psychology doesn't really fit here because it implies an objective reality - an existent reality. It makes a clear distinction a duality. Why are you asking?
Click to expand...

I thought it was obvious.  You have described an issue of the mind.  Psychology is the science of the mind.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "IF" god doesn't exist. I didn't know that there was ever a consensus that he ever did exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know who's words I live my life by?  Shakespeare
> 
> _“This above all: *to thine own self be true*_
Click to expand...

Good for you.  You will know if it works by your outcomes.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Of course it is a Christian thing and despite what BRNMR claims it is a Buddhist thing too and it is a common to all religions.



Obviously you haven't understood what I've been saying. Your _dying to self_ has nothing to do with Buddhism.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> I thought it was obvious.  You have described an issue of the mind.  Psychology is the science of the mind.



You thought wrong.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is a Christian thing and despite what BRNMR claims it is a Buddhist thing too and it is a common to all religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you haven't understood what I've been saying. Your _dying to self_ has nothing to do with Buddhism.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it is different at all other than you have no practical way of doing it.  Besides as near as I can tell, what you have described to me is the science of psychology, not a religion.  In fact, they have college courses on Buddhism and modern psychology at Princeton.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was obvious.  You have described an issue of the mind.  Psychology is the science of the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You thought wrong.
Click to expand...

I disagree.  You don't see any connection to the spiritual world, Buddhism is based on science, Buddhism has identified the mind as the source of the misconception and psychology is the science of the mind.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> I don't see how it is different at all other than you have no practical way of doing it.  Besides as near as I can tell, what you have described to me is the science of psychology, not a religion.  In fact, they have college courses on Buddhism and modern psychology at Princeton.



This is the problem. Someone like Ding, and others like him, get vaguely familiar with Buddhism and think they understand it. They then make ill-informed and erroneous statements about it, giving others a false picture. They'd do well to empty their minds on the topic and listen to people who've actually studied Buddhism formally from a master and practiced it for years.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> I disagree.  You don't see any connection to the spiritual world, Buddhism is based on science, Buddhism has identified the mind as the source of the misconception and psychology is the science of the mind.



You remind me of the teenage son telling the father how to live his life. LOL


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name something you do where the more you do it the happier you get.
> 
> 
> 
> Die to self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Is that Shakespeare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It is a common theme to all religions and a key to happiness and success.  It really is the only way to see reality and sharpen one's intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not.  I just looked it up and it's a Christian thing.
> 
> What does the Bible mean by "dying to self"?
> 
> The concept of “dying to self” is found throughout the New Testament. It expresses the true essence of the Christian life, in which we take up our cross and follow Christ. Dying to self is part of being born again; the old self dies and the new self comes to life (John 3:3–7). Not only are Christians born again when we come to salvation, but we also continue dying to self as part of the process of sanctification. As such, dying to self is both a one-time event and a lifelong process.
> 
> It's little stuff like this that bugs me.  It's cult talk.  You take up your cross?  How so?
> 
> And what if I like my old self?
> 
> But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is a Christian thing and despite what BRNMR claims it is a Buddhist thing too and it is a common to all religions.  Dying to self means to not have a preference for an outcome or the consequences to yourself for any given event.  It is the only way to be objective and see reality.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  Your call.  I couldn't care less.  If you don't want to believe me, don't.  I couldn't care less about that either.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices, this choice is no different.
Click to expand...


I think it should be "I could care less".  

"Could Care Less" Versus "Couldn't Care Less"


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it is different at all other than you have no practical way of doing it.  Besides as near as I can tell, what you have described to me is the science of psychology, not a religion.  In fact, they have college courses on Buddhism and modern psychology at Princeton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the problem. Someone like Ding, and others like him, get vaguely familiar with Buddhism and think they understand it. They then make ill-informed and erroneous statements about it, giving others a false picture. They'd do well to empty their minds on the topic and listen to people who've actually studied Buddhism formally from a master and practiced it for years.
Click to expand...

The problem is in the mind, right?  Your efforts are to correct the problem of the mind, right?  That's psychology.  He practiced psychology, the science of the mind.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "IF" god doesn't exist. I didn't know that there was ever a consensus that he ever did exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know who's words I live my life by?  Shakespeare
> 
> _“This above all: *to thine own self be true*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you.  You will know if it works by your outcomes.
Click to expand...


I follow this one only I take out the Love God because I don't believe there is one.





But if there was a god, I would love him.  I just don't believe there is one.  We made it up.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it is different at all other than you have no practical way of doing it.  Besides as near as I can tell, what you have described to me is the science of psychology, not a religion.  In fact, they have college courses on Buddhism and modern psychology at Princeton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the problem. Someone like Ding, and others like him, get vaguely familiar with Buddhism and think they understand it. They then make ill-informed and erroneous statements about it, giving others a false picture. They'd do well to empty their minds on the topic and listen to people who've actually studied Buddhism formally from a master and practiced it for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is in the mind, right?  Your efforts are to correct the problem of the mind, right?  That's psychology.  He practiced psychology, the science of the mind.
Click to expand...


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Die to self.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Is that Shakespeare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It is a common theme to all religions and a key to happiness and success.  It really is the only way to see reality and sharpen one's intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not.  I just looked it up and it's a Christian thing.
> 
> What does the Bible mean by "dying to self"?
> 
> The concept of “dying to self” is found throughout the New Testament. It expresses the true essence of the Christian life, in which we take up our cross and follow Christ. Dying to self is part of being born again; the old self dies and the new self comes to life (John 3:3–7). Not only are Christians born again when we come to salvation, but we also continue dying to self as part of the process of sanctification. As such, dying to self is both a one-time event and a lifelong process.
> 
> It's little stuff like this that bugs me.  It's cult talk.  You take up your cross?  How so?
> 
> And what if I like my old self?
> 
> But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is a Christian thing and despite what BRNMR claims it is a Buddhist thing too and it is a common to all religions.  Dying to self means to not have a preference for an outcome or the consequences to yourself for any given event.  It is the only way to be objective and see reality.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  Your call.  I couldn't care less.  If you don't want to believe me, don't.  I couldn't care less about that either.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices, this choice is no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it should be "I could care less".
> 
> "Could Care Less" Versus "Couldn't Care Less"
Click to expand...


You'r kidding, right?  I could not care less means that I care so little that there is no level beyond my current level.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "IF" god doesn't exist. I didn't know that there was ever a consensus that he ever did exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know who's words I live my life by?  Shakespeare
> 
> _“This above all: *to thine own self be true*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you.  You will know if it works by your outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I follow this one only I take out the Love God because I don't believe there is one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if there was a god, I would love him.  I just don't believe there is one.  We made it up.
Click to expand...

I could not be happier for you.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  You don't see any connection to the spiritual world, Buddhism is based on science, Buddhism has identified the mind as the source of the misconception and psychology is the science of the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You remind me of the teenage son telling the father how to live his life. LOL
Click to expand...

I am not telling you how to live your life.  I am telling you what I believe.  I believe that everything you are telling me fits the definition of psychology.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Is that Shakespeare?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It is a common theme to all religions and a key to happiness and success.  It really is the only way to see reality and sharpen one's intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not.  I just looked it up and it's a Christian thing.
> 
> What does the Bible mean by "dying to self"?
> 
> The concept of “dying to self” is found throughout the New Testament. It expresses the true essence of the Christian life, in which we take up our cross and follow Christ. Dying to self is part of being born again; the old self dies and the new self comes to life (John 3:3–7). Not only are Christians born again when we come to salvation, but we also continue dying to self as part of the process of sanctification. As such, dying to self is both a one-time event and a lifelong process.
> 
> It's little stuff like this that bugs me.  It's cult talk.  You take up your cross?  How so?
> 
> And what if I like my old self?
> 
> But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is a Christian thing and despite what BRNMR claims it is a Buddhist thing too and it is a common to all religions.  Dying to self means to not have a preference for an outcome or the consequences to yourself for any given event.  It is the only way to be objective and see reality.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  Your call.  I couldn't care less.  If you don't want to believe me, don't.  I couldn't care less about that either.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices, this choice is no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it should be "I could care less".
> 
> "Could Care Less" Versus "Couldn't Care Less"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'r kidding, right?  I could not care less means that I care so little that there is no level beyond my current level.
Click to expand...

When that saying came from England it was "I couldn't care less" but then the American version is "I could care less".  What's the right way?  There is no right or wrong way.  Believe what you want.  It's not like you'll go to hell if you say it one way vs. the other.  LOL.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.









But you obviously can't.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  You don't see any connection to the spiritual world, Buddhism is based on science, Buddhism has identified the mind as the source of the misconception and psychology is the science of the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You remind me of the teenage son telling the father how to live his life. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not telling you how to live your life.  I am telling you what I believe.  I believe that everything you are telling me fits the definition of psychology.
Click to expand...


That analogy zinged about 3 feet over your head but I'm glad you managed to get the round peg into your square hole.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  You don't see any connection to the spiritual world, Buddhism is based on science, Buddhism has identified the mind as the source of the misconception and psychology is the science of the mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You remind me of the teenage son telling the father how to live his life. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not telling you how to live your life.  I am telling you what I believe.  I believe that everything you are telling me fits the definition of psychology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That analogy zinged about 3 feet over your head but I'm glad you managed to get the round peg into your square hole.
Click to expand...

Was that you being an island unto yourself?   Was that you eliminating your desires?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It is a common theme to all religions and a key to happiness and success.  It really is the only way to see reality and sharpen one's intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  I just looked it up and it's a Christian thing.
> 
> What does the Bible mean by "dying to self"?
> 
> The concept of “dying to self” is found throughout the New Testament. It expresses the true essence of the Christian life, in which we take up our cross and follow Christ. Dying to self is part of being born again; the old self dies and the new self comes to life (John 3:3–7). Not only are Christians born again when we come to salvation, but we also continue dying to self as part of the process of sanctification. As such, dying to self is both a one-time event and a lifelong process.
> 
> It's little stuff like this that bugs me.  It's cult talk.  You take up your cross?  How so?
> 
> And what if I like my old self?
> 
> But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is a Christian thing and despite what BRNMR claims it is a Buddhist thing too and it is a common to all religions.  Dying to self means to not have a preference for an outcome or the consequences to yourself for any given event.  It is the only way to be objective and see reality.  If you don't want to do it, don't.  Your call.  I couldn't care less.  If you don't want to believe me, don't.  I couldn't care less about that either.  At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices, this choice is no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it should be "I could care less".
> 
> "Could Care Less" Versus "Couldn't Care Less"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'r kidding, right?  I could not care less means that I care so little that there is no level beyond my current level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When that saying came from England it was "I couldn't care less" but then the American version is "I could care less".  What's the right way?  There is no right or wrong way.  Believe what you want.  It's not like you'll go to hell if you say it one way vs. the other.  LOL.
Click to expand...

Logic dictates it is I couldn't care less.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy zinged about 3 feet over your head but I'm glad you managed to get the round peg into your square hole.
> 
> 
> 
> Was that you being an island unto yourself?   Was that you eliminating your desires?
Click to expand...


That makes no sense. I don't think your able to understand anything I've been saying. Your loss.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy zinged about 3 feet over your head but I'm glad you managed to get the round peg into your square hole.
> 
> 
> 
> Was that you being an island unto yourself?   Was that you eliminating your desires?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. I don't think your able to understand anything I've been saying. Your loss.
Click to expand...

That is only because you have not  destroyed (getting rid of - seeing through etc) your misconception of how you exist.

"Buddha said, ‘If someone is suffering, that is his karma.’ You are not to interfere with another person’s karma because he is purging himself through suffering and reincarnation! Buddha said, ‘You are to be an island unto yourself.’"[80]

[80] Carlson, Fast Facts on False Teachings, 29.


----------



## Brynmr

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy zinged about 3 feet over your head but I'm glad you managed to get the round peg into your square hole.
> 
> 
> 
> Was that you being an island unto yourself?   Was that you eliminating your desires?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. I don't think your able to understand anything I've been saying. Your loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is only because you have not  destroyed (getting rid of - seeing through etc) your misconception of how you exist.
> 
> "Buddha said, ‘If someone is suffering, that is his karma.’ You are not to interfere with another person’s karma because he is purging himself through suffering and reincarnation! Buddha said, ‘You are to be an island unto yourself.’"[80]
> 
> [80] Carlson, Fast Facts on False Teachings, 29.
Click to expand...



I thought you wanted to learn something but it seems you're just looking to be right. I wasted my time on you.


----------



## ding

Brynmr said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy zinged about 3 feet over your head but I'm glad you managed to get the round peg into your square hole.
> 
> 
> 
> Was that you being an island unto yourself?   Was that you eliminating your desires?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. I don't think your able to understand anything I've been saying. Your loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is only because you have not  destroyed (getting rid of - seeing through etc) your misconception of how you exist.
> 
> "Buddha said, ‘If someone is suffering, that is his karma.’ You are not to interfere with another person’s karma because he is purging himself through suffering and reincarnation! Buddha said, ‘You are to be an island unto yourself.’"[80]
> 
> [80] Carlson, Fast Facts on False Teachings, 29.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you wanted to learn something but it seems you're just looking to be right. I wasted my time on you.
Click to expand...

And I thought you practiced what you preached.  You have wasted time, but it was not on me.


----------



## ding

ding said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how it is different at all other than you have no practical way of doing it.  Besides as near as I can tell, what you have described to me is the science of psychology, not a religion.  In fact, they have college courses on Buddhism and modern psychology at Princeton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the problem. Someone like Ding, and others like him, get vaguely familiar with Buddhism and think they understand it. They then make ill-informed and erroneous statements about it, giving others a false picture. They'd do well to empty their minds on the topic and listen to people who've actually studied Buddhism formally from a master and practiced it for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is in the mind, right?  Your efforts are to correct the problem of the mind, right?  That's psychology.  He practiced psychology, the science of the mind.
Click to expand...

I think you should bring this conversation to your master and see what he has to say about it.  I can guarantee you that he won't be discussing anything I wrote.  He will be discussing your responses to what I wrote.  Unless of course, he believes that I can control you that is.  Which if he does, he is no master at all.  Your problem is that you have a preference for an outcome which tells me that you have not died of self or as you are wont to say, returned to your state of emptiness.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


sealybobo said:


> Dying to self is part of being born again; the old self dies and the new self comes to life (John 3:3–7).




The Triumph of Good vs Evil, the religion of the Almighty is not for a Spirit to die but to become pure in one or the other options - possibly from birth never to sin as may be the case of Jesus but is not a preclusion against making errors " Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani " but simply the means to attain Admission to the Everlasting.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...




Did you see this?

*"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.

"I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'


Geee.....who knew?


----------



## rightwinger

If God does not exist.....then who invented the Internet?


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> If God does not exist.....then who invented the Internet?


AL gore


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
Click to expand...

Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
Click to expand...




I have no beef with the Mormons.

And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?

1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
Michael Savage


2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
“It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”                                   
http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro


3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue



4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
Shall I wait....?



5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
 [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
Obama’s distorted strategy


----------



## PK1

PoliticalChic said:


> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?


I think Obama stands up for *FREEDOM of belief*, including belief in stupidity, like religion.
There are differences between *belief* and overt *behavior*.
It's the bad behavior that should be condemned, and I'm sure Obama condemns Islamic extremism that expands to authoritarian politics & violence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PK1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Obama stands up for *FREEDOM of belief*, including belief in stupidity, like religion.
> There are differences between *belief* and overt *behavior*.
> It's the bad behavior that should be condemned, and I'm sure Obama condemns Islamic extremism that expands to authoritarian politics & violence.
Click to expand...



Hmmmm......speaking of 'stupidity,' you seem to have dodged the question you linked to....
 .....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?


----------



## PK1

PoliticalChic said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Obama stands up for *FREEDOM of belief*, including belief in stupidity, like religion.
> There are differences between *belief* and overt *behavior*.
> It's the bad behavior that should be condemned, and I'm sure Obama condemns Islamic extremism that expands to authoritarian politics & violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
Click to expand...

No, can you?
Please don't get stupid on me; you're halfway there.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PK1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Obama stands up for *FREEDOM of belief*, including belief in stupidity, like religion.
> There are differences between *belief* and overt *behavior*.
> It's the bad behavior that should be condemned, and I'm sure Obama condemns Islamic extremism that expands to authoritarian politics & violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, can you?
> Please don't get stupid on me; you're halfway there.
Click to expand...



Hmm.....you linked to this query....


.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?

Then ignored your own link.

Pretty much  a priori evidence of your stupidity.
True?


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
Click to expand...


You don't have a beef with Mormons? Not the point. Do you get it? No you do not. You recognize it as a silly cult foolish enough to believe such nonsense. They just say your religion lost its authority from God in the dark ages and God told Joseph Smith to start a new one. And they do recruit just like islam.

And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion. And like Christians some are good and some are bad. So Islam is free to be in the USA.

I hope the new gop government will stop taking in Muslims but they won't. They'll say it's for humanitarian reasons but they love the cheap labor


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
Click to expand...

You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?


----------



## Brynmr

PoliticalChic said:


> .....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?



Islam of course. Looks for Obama to revert in the near future.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
Click to expand...

Do Republicans agree with general lyin?


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam of course. Looks for Obama to revert in the near future.
Click to expand...

I would. Just to fuck with people. Then Michelle won't be able to run in 8 years tho


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?




You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
Click to expand...

The most devout Jew would be sickened at how much skin you show off in public.


----------



## Brynmr

Islam is no more a religion than the paint on a BMW is a car.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.
Click to expand...

I don't want them becoming 51% of our population but I don't mind a Muslim minority living among us. 

If I could wish all Muslims back to the middle East? Would you?


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> Islam is no more a religion than the paint on a BMW is a car.


Sorry, it is. Ask anyone. 

In fact you guys try to say us atheists are a religion.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.
Click to expand...

No. I recognize them as a crazy man made religion just like I do crazy Christians.

Your delusion vets you to do good things. So does theirs. Sometimes you get a nut and Christians always say the same thing Muslims do. "He doesn't represent our religion. If he were a true (insert religion) he wouldn't have done that.


----------



## PK1

PoliticalChic said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Obama stands up for *FREEDOM of belief*, including belief in stupidity, like religion.
> There are differences between *belief* and overt *behavior*.
> It's the bad behavior that should be condemned, and I'm sure Obama condemns Islamic extremism that expands to authoritarian politics & violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, can you?
> Please don't get stupid on me; you're halfway there.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm.....you linked to this query....
> .....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Then ignored your own link.
> Pretty much  a priori evidence of your stupidity.
> True?
Click to expand...

I answered your Q with alleged accuracy.
You could not answer my Q, which was your own Q implying "something".
Now that's stupid. or is it cowardice?


----------



## sealybobo

PK1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Obama stands up for *FREEDOM of belief*, including belief in stupidity, like religion.
> There are differences between *belief* and overt *behavior*.
> It's the bad behavior that should be condemned, and I'm sure Obama condemns Islamic extremism that expands to authoritarian politics & violence.
Click to expand...

You answered the dumb bitch here and what did she come back with? TWICE?? 

"Name the only religion Obama ever stood up for"

Why even try to have a conversation with a person like this? You nailed it here. Now if politichich has a good reply for what you wrote here let's see it.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> Islam is no more a religion than the paint on a BMW is a car.


Will Republicans take away it's religious status? They have the power


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a beef with Mormons? Not the point. Do you get it? No you do not. You recognize it as a silly cult foolish enough to believe such nonsense. They just say your religion lost its authority from God in the dark ages and God told Joseph Smith to start a new one. And they do recruit just like islam.
> 
> And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion. And like Christians some are good and some are bad. So Islam is free to be in the USA.
> 
> I hope the new gop government will stop taking in Muslims but they won't. They'll say it's for humanitarian reasons but they love the cheap labor
Click to expand...


"And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."

Don't be silly.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....But I shouldn't make fun.  The moral of this message is good.  You can become a better person.  I get it.  You can always change.  You could teach this message without talking snakes you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
Click to expand...



"And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."

I'll go with this:
"We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
Michael Savage


Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a beef with Mormons? Not the point. Do you get it? No you do not. You recognize it as a silly cult foolish enough to believe such nonsense. They just say your religion lost its authority from God in the dark ages and God told Joseph Smith to start a new one. And they do recruit just like islam.
> 
> And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion. And like Christians some are good and some are bad. So Islam is free to be in the USA.
> 
> I hope the new gop government will stop taking in Muslims but they won't. They'll say it's for humanitarian reasons but they love the cheap labor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> Don't be silly.
Click to expand...

Then Republicans will be taking their tax breaks away? I doubt that. So reality says you're being a stupid girl.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> I'll go with this:
> "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

Until caught they are. In fact make it easy for them to get a gun.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Brynmr said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam of course. Looks for Obama to revert in the near future.
Click to expand...



None of his supporters would ever answer that query.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> If I could wish all Muslims back to the middle East? Would you?



Of course.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you obviously can't.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> I'll go with this:
> "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.

And Muslims are much nicer than you guys. If you had to choose between getting your head chopped off or burning in hell for eternity I'll get the haircut


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam of course. Looks for Obama to revert in the near future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of his supporters would ever answer that query.
Click to expand...

You remind me of a nazi who cries that the world only defends Jews well I'm sorry but it's the Jews being tossed in the ovens. Muslim americans are getting a bad rap for a few bad apples.

Are you suggesting its more than just a few bad apples?

Trump should be able to deport any known bad actors. I hope the GOP are tough on anti Americans living in America. On that we agree. Fuck them up.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I recognize them as a crazy man made religion just like I do crazy Christians.
> 
> Your delusion vets you to do good things. So does theirs. Sometimes you get a nut and Christians always say the same thing Muslims do. "He doesn't represent our religion. If he were a true (insert religion) he wouldn't have done that.
Click to expand...


Obviously you don't understand Islam. Probably never read the Koran.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could wish all Muslims back to the middle East? Would you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
Click to expand...

If you could push a button and some Muslim in the middle East would die but you got free cable for life would you push it?


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I recognize them as a crazy man made religion just like I do crazy Christians.
> 
> Your delusion vets you to do good things. So does theirs. Sometimes you get a nut and Christians always say the same thing Muslims do. "He doesn't represent our religion. If he were a true (insert religion) he wouldn't have done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand Islam. Probably never read the Koran.
Click to expand...

Like the new or old testament it matters how you interpret.

And which koran? Are their multiple versions like their are bibles?


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.



*“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”* — Bukhari 9.84.57 

Show us in the Christian doctrine where it calls for the death of any Christian who leaves his religion.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could wish all Muslims back to the middle East? Would you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could push a button and some Muslim in the middle East would die but you got free cable for life would you push it?
Click to expand...



Of course not. Any more question?


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I recognize them as a crazy man made religion just like I do crazy Christians.
> 
> Your delusion vets you to do good things. So does theirs. Sometimes you get a nut and Christians always say the same thing Muslims do. "He doesn't represent our religion. If he were a true (insert religion) he wouldn't have done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand Islam. Probably never read the Koran.
Click to expand...

Im sure lots of Americans have read the Koran and seems like the consensus is that it's another " beautiful" religion. Is this how trump, Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell feel?


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”* — Bukhari 9.84.57
> 
> Show us in the Christian doctrine where it calls for the death of any Christian who leaves his religion.
Click to expand...

What are Republicans going to do? Show me what your party says about this. What do you suggest we do day one?


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> *"New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'*
> The executive editor of The New York Times said in an interview this week that journalists at his publication, and elsewhere, have a hard time understanding religion and the role it plays in people's lives.
> 
> "I think that the New York-based — and Washington-based too, probably — media powerhouses don't quite get religion."
> New York Times executive editor: 'We don't get religion'
> 
> 
> Geee.....who knew?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> I'll go with this:
> "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.
> 
> And Muslims are much nicer than you guys. If you had to choose between getting your head chopped off or burning in hell for eternity I'll get the haircut
Click to expand...




You're an imbecile....but I'm proud of you!

You have the energy to let everyone know it!!!!

 Roger Scruton writes in "The West and the Rest"
"Perhaps not unexpected, as the West offers freedoms unheard of in Islamic countries, 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from places where their religion is the official doctrine. They flee to the West, for opportunity, and personal safety, as well as said freedom.

But...the oddity is that, while settling in the West, many of these refugees begin to develop a hatred for their new home...and plan to take revenge on it with only its final destruction as the fitting punishment.
Even less understandable, those Muslims who settle and assimilate often have children, brought up in the West, yet identify as opposition to it, and desire its annihilation."




In this thread I recount 93......ninety-three......* Islamist plots and successful attacks,* on the homeland:

President Pinocchio on Terrorism


*93!


Check it out, you imbecile!*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I recognize them as a crazy man made religion just like I do crazy Christians.
> 
> Your delusion vets you to do good things. So does theirs. Sometimes you get a nut and Christians always say the same thing Muslims do. "He doesn't represent our religion. If he were a true (insert religion) he wouldn't have done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand Islam. Probably never read the Koran.
Click to expand...



It is a manual of war.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I recognize them as a crazy man made religion just like I do crazy Christians.
> 
> Your delusion vets you to do good things. So does theirs. Sometimes you get a nut and Christians always say the same thing Muslims do. "He doesn't represent our religion. If he were a true (insert religion) he wouldn't have done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand Islam. Probably never read the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im sure lots of Americans have read the Koran and seems like the consensus is that it's another " beautiful" religion. Is this how trump, Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell feel?
Click to expand...


Wrong. The more (true) Americans learn about Islam the more they hate it - and for damned good reason.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could wish all Muslims back to the middle East? Would you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could push a button and some Muslim in the middle East would die but you got free cable for life would you push it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Any more question?
Click to expand...

What do Muslims say about that passage from the Koran?


----------



## Brynmr

PoliticalChic said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I recognize them as a crazy man made religion just like I do crazy Christians.
> 
> Your delusion vets you to do good things. So does theirs. Sometimes you get a nut and Christians always say the same thing Muslims do. "He doesn't represent our religion. If he were a true (insert religion) he wouldn't have done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand Islam. Probably never read the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a manual of war.
Click to expand...


Not unlike that other book of hate: Mein Kampf.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> What do Muslims say about that passage from the Koran?




About apostasy? 

First of all it matters not how a few Moslems "interpret" the doctrine. The doctrine is the word of their god. Secondly, most Moslems agree with the penalty for apostasy. Thirdly it's not a passage from the Koran but from the second most authentic book in the Islamic doctrine. 

“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” — Bukhari 9.84.57


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get Islam? Do you get Mormons? If you do explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> I'll go with this:
> "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.
> 
> And Muslims are much nicer than you guys. If you had to choose between getting your head chopped off or burning in hell for eternity I'll get the haircut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an imbecile....but I'm proud of you!
> 
> You have the energy to let everyone know it!!!!
> 
> Roger Scruton writes in "The West and the Rest"
> "Perhaps not unexpected, as the West offers freedoms unheard of in Islamic countries, 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from places where their religion is the official doctrine. They flee to the West, for opportunity, and personal safety, as well as said freedom.
> 
> But...the oddity is that, while settling in the West, many of these refugees begin to develop a hatred for their new home...and plan to take revenge on it with only its final destruction as the fitting punishment.
> Even less understandable, those Muslims who settle and assimilate often have children, brought up in the West, yet identify as opposition to it, and desire its annihilation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread I recount 93......ninety-three......* Islamist plots and successful attacks,* on the homeland:
> 
> President Pinocchio on Terrorism
> 
> 
> *93!
> 
> 
> Check it out, you imbecile!*
Click to expand...

93 in how many years? Dillan roof shot and killed 8 black people to start a race war. We should take out all kkk. Or, why haven't we? Seems like the same laws must be protecting both groups. 

I agree no more immigrants but what about the people here now? It does take a few generations for any immigrant to truly assimilate and Muslims a few more. All we can do is stop letting more in and spy on suspected terrorists covertly and nip that shit in the butt


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You buy any load of crap Moslems shovel your way I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I recognize them as a crazy man made religion just like I do crazy Christians.
> 
> Your delusion vets you to do good things. So does theirs. Sometimes you get a nut and Christians always say the same thing Muslims do. "He doesn't represent our religion. If he were a true (insert religion) he wouldn't have done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't understand Islam. Probably never read the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im sure lots of Americans have read the Koran and seems like the consensus is that it's another " beautiful" religion. Is this how trump, Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell feel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The more (true) Americans learn about Islam the more they hate it - and for damned good reason.
Click to expand...

If any of what you say is true Republicans should address this while they have the power.

They would love to use religion to divide us. Any Muslim who voted for trump or didn't vote gets what they deserve


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> I'll go with this:
> "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.
> 
> And Muslims are much nicer than you guys. If you had to choose between getting your head chopped off or burning in hell for eternity I'll get the haircut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an imbecile....but I'm proud of you!
> 
> You have the energy to let everyone know it!!!!
> 
> Roger Scruton writes in "The West and the Rest"
> "Perhaps not unexpected, as the West offers freedoms unheard of in Islamic countries, 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from places where their religion is the official doctrine. They flee to the West, for opportunity, and personal safety, as well as said freedom.
> 
> But...the oddity is that, while settling in the West, many of these refugees begin to develop a hatred for their new home...and plan to take revenge on it with only its final destruction as the fitting punishment.
> Even less understandable, those Muslims who settle and assimilate often have children, brought up in the West, yet identify as opposition to it, and desire its annihilation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread I recount 93......ninety-three......* Islamist plots and successful attacks,* on the homeland:
> 
> President Pinocchio on Terrorism
> 
> 
> *93!
> 
> 
> Check it out, you imbecile!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 93 in how many years? Dillan roof shot and killed 8 black people to start a race war. We should take out all kkk. Or, why haven't we? Seems like the same laws must be protecting both groups.
> 
> I agree no more immigrants but what about the people here now? It does take a few generations for any immigrant to truly assimilate and Muslims a few more. All we can do is stop letting more in and spy on suspected terrorists covertly and nip that shit in the butt
Click to expand...



1. 93 during Obama's term in office.
 "On Tuesday, President Barack Obama stated that “Over [the] last eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland.”
Talk about something actually deserving of being labeled as “fake news.”

Imbeciles believe him, don't they.
Raise your paw.

2. I spent a great deal of time posting all 93.
They are re-education for imbeciles.....your calling.
Now....get to that thread post haste.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”* — Bukhari 9.84.57
> 
> Show us in the Christian doctrine where it calls for the death of any Christian who leaves his religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are Republicans going to do? Show me what your party says about this. What do you suggest we do day one?
Click to expand...



I've gone into this in another thread. The Solution


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do Muslims say about that passage from the Koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About apostasy?
> 
> First of all it matters not how a few Moslems "interpret" the doctrine. The doctrine is the word of their god. Secondly, most Moslems agree with the penalty for apostasy. Thirdly it's not a passage from the Koran but from the second most authentic book in the Islamic doctrine.
> 
> “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” — Bukhari 9.84.57
Click to expand...


So it's not in the Koran.

Lots of Christians cherry pick too.

What do you suggest we tell Islam go take that out or they can no longer qualify as a religion? They should edit their holy books like we did ours


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no beef with the Mormons.
> 
> And...what makes you imagine (I almost said 'think') Islam is a religion?
> 
> 1. "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> 2. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,"....  until you recognize that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it. And as far as a strategy – let me just conclude one thing, as I just had in my latest op-ed -- the Obama Administration has a strategy.”
> “It’s very simple, any thinking American should be able to grasp,” said the admiral.  “It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, it’s pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood!”
> http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c...ategy-it-s-anti-american-pro-islamic-it-s-pro
> 
> 
> 3. 'Christians and Jews....the more devout, the less violent. Not so with Islam.'                Bill Donohue
> 
> 
> 
> 4. BTW.....can you name the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?
> Shall I wait....?
> 
> 
> 
> 5. And....you seem not to grasp this:
> [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan from Turkey said, ‘*Islam is Islam. *There are no modifiers [e.g., Islamic extremism]. Democracy is the train we ride to *our ultimate objective.[ world domination.]*  It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
> Obama’s distorted strategy
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> I'll go with this:
> "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.
> 
> And Muslims are much nicer than you guys. If you had to choose between getting your head chopped off or burning in hell for eternity I'll get the haircut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an imbecile....but I'm proud of you!
> 
> You have the energy to let everyone know it!!!!
> 
> Roger Scruton writes in "The West and the Rest"
> "Perhaps not unexpected, as the West offers freedoms unheard of in Islamic countries, 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from places where their religion is the official doctrine. They flee to the West, for opportunity, and personal safety, as well as said freedom.
> 
> But...the oddity is that, while settling in the West, many of these refugees begin to develop a hatred for their new home...and plan to take revenge on it with only its final destruction as the fitting punishment.
> Even less understandable, those Muslims who settle and assimilate often have children, brought up in the West, yet identify as opposition to it, and desire its annihilation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread I recount 93......ninety-three......* Islamist plots and successful attacks,* on the homeland:
> 
> President Pinocchio on Terrorism
> 
> 
> *93!
> 
> 
> Check it out, you imbecile!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 93 in how many years? Dillan roof shot and killed 8 black people to start a race war. We should take out all kkk. Or, why haven't we? Seems like the same laws must be protecting both groups.
> 
> I agree no more immigrants but what about the people here now? It does take a few generations for any immigrant to truly assimilate and Muslims a few more. All we can do is stop letting more in and spy on suspected terrorists covertly and nip that shit in the butt
Click to expand...


"It does take a few generations for any immigrant to truly assimilate and Muslims a few more."
Gads....You are an imbecile....

Roger Scruton writes in "The West and the Rest"
"Perhaps not unexpected, as the West offers freedoms unheard of in Islamic countries, 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from places where their religion is the official doctrine. They flee to the West, for opportunity, and personal safety, as well as said freedom.

But...the oddity is that, while settling in the West, many of these refugees begin to develop a hatred for their new home...and plan to take revenge on it with only its final destruction as the fitting punishment.
Even less understandable,* those Muslims who settle and assimilate often have children, brought up in the West, yet identify as opposition to it, and desire its annihilation."*
*

The only hope for you is seppuku.*


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> They would love to use religion to divide us.



Islam itself is nothing if not divisive.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> I'll go with this:
> "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.
> 
> And Muslims are much nicer than you guys. If you had to choose between getting your head chopped off or burning in hell for eternity I'll get the haircut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an imbecile....but I'm proud of you!
> 
> You have the energy to let everyone know it!!!!
> 
> Roger Scruton writes in "The West and the Rest"
> "Perhaps not unexpected, as the West offers freedoms unheard of in Islamic countries, 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from places where their religion is the official doctrine. They flee to the West, for opportunity, and personal safety, as well as said freedom.
> 
> But...the oddity is that, while settling in the West, many of these refugees begin to develop a hatred for their new home...and plan to take revenge on it with only its final destruction as the fitting punishment.
> Even less understandable, those Muslims who settle and assimilate often have children, brought up in the West, yet identify as opposition to it, and desire its annihilation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread I recount 93......ninety-three......* Islamist plots and successful attacks,* on the homeland:
> 
> President Pinocchio on Terrorism
> 
> 
> *93!
> 
> 
> Check it out, you imbecile!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 93 in how many years? Dillan roof shot and killed 8 black people to start a race war. We should take out all kkk. Or, why haven't we? Seems like the same laws must be protecting both groups.
> 
> I agree no more immigrants but what about the people here now? It does take a few generations for any immigrant to truly assimilate and Muslims a few more. All we can do is stop letting more in and spy on suspected terrorists covertly and nip that shit in the butt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 93 during Obama's term in office.
> "On Tuesday, President Barack Obama stated that “Over [the] last eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland.”
> Talk about something actually deserving of being labeled as “fake news.”
> 
> Imbeciles believe him, don't they.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 2. I spent a great deal of time posting all 93.
> They are re-education for imbeciles.....your calling.
> Now....get to that thread post haste.
Click to expand...

Ten lone wolf attacks a year. What are you going to do to the ten million innocent Muslim Americans?


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in only religions you approve of. Lol. How free is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> I'll go with this:
> "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.
> 
> And Muslims are much nicer than you guys. If you had to choose between getting your head chopped off or burning in hell for eternity I'll get the haircut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an imbecile....but I'm proud of you!
> 
> You have the energy to let everyone know it!!!!
> 
> Roger Scruton writes in "The West and the Rest"
> "Perhaps not unexpected, as the West offers freedoms unheard of in Islamic countries, 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from places where their religion is the official doctrine. They flee to the West, for opportunity, and personal safety, as well as said freedom.
> 
> But...the oddity is that, while settling in the West, many of these refugees begin to develop a hatred for their new home...and plan to take revenge on it with only its final destruction as the fitting punishment.
> Even less understandable, those Muslims who settle and assimilate often have children, brought up in the West, yet identify as opposition to it, and desire its annihilation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread I recount 93......ninety-three......* Islamist plots and successful attacks,* on the homeland:
> 
> President Pinocchio on Terrorism
> 
> 
> *93!
> 
> 
> Check it out, you imbecile!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 93 in how many years? Dillan roof shot and killed 8 black people to start a race war. We should take out all kkk. Or, why haven't we? Seems like the same laws must be protecting both groups.
> 
> I agree no more immigrants but what about the people here now? It does take a few generations for any immigrant to truly assimilate and Muslims a few more. All we can do is stop letting more in and spy on suspected terrorists covertly and nip that shit in the butt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It does take a few generations for any immigrant to truly assimilate and Muslims a few more."
> Gads....You are an imbecile....
> 
> Roger Scruton writes in "The West and the Rest"
> "Perhaps not unexpected, as the West offers freedoms unheard of in Islamic countries, 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from places where their religion is the official doctrine. They flee to the West, for opportunity, and personal safety, as well as said freedom.
> 
> But...the oddity is that, while settling in the West, many of these refugees begin to develop a hatred for their new home...and plan to take revenge on it with only its final destruction as the fitting punishment.
> Even less understandable,* those Muslims who settle and assimilate often have children, brought up in the West, yet identify as opposition to it, and desire its annihilation."
> 
> 
> The only hope for you is seppuku.*
Click to expand...

You keep repeating that "often" something happens when in reality it's rare.

I admit it happens but it's not often. And what do you propose? I say stop letting more in. The ones here now are free. What are you suggesting be done?


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Lots of Christians cherry pick too.




Sahih Bukhari

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260: 


 Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had  I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

 Volume 9, Book 83, Number 37:

I said, "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly,  was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

 Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: 

 Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his  place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

 Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271: 

 A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong  with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle

 Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58: 

There was a fettered man  beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa  ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed.

Even today, apostasy is punishable by death. Even in current times. After Muhammads death, apostasy was still punishable by death. During the various Islamic Caliphates, apostasy was punishable by death. Only in 1839, under the Ottoman Empire, with the Tanzimat reforms which was an bid to curb western agression was Apostasy attempted to be abolished. Although, in many parts of the Muslim world under the Ottoman rule such as North Africa and the Middle east, the death penalty for apostasy was still inforced. Jamaat-e-Islami Hind based in India also decreed that the penalty for apostasy was death. This was due to the scholarly works of Alqama ibn Qays (681–682), Sufyan al-Thawri(716-778), Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Sahl Abu Bakr al-Sarakhsi, Abu al-Walid al-Baji all condoned the death penalty for apostasy. In 1978, ISLAMIC SCHOLAR, Abdullah al-Mishadd, Head of the Fatawa Council of Al-Azhr offically declared that apostasy is punishable by death.

Ibn Qudamah, an Islamic scholar, born 1147AD, wrote al-Mughni, said in 9:18 "The apostate should not be put to death until he has been asked to repent three times." This is the view of the majority of scholars, including ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Ata’, al-Nakhaii, Maalik, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ishaaq and others. Time should be allowed for the person to rethink the matter, and the best length of time is three days. - islamqa.com

so basically, the accused apostate is given 3 days to rethink his decision and if he still doesn't want to become/remain a Muslim he is sentenced to death.

Many Islamic scholars, ancient ones from Sufyan al-Thawr to quite modern scholars such as Abdullah al-Mishadd decree that apostasy is punishable by death.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And I don't care what savage says Islam is another religion."
> 
> I'll go with this:
> "We believe in freedom of religion insofar as a religion teaches peace and love and the brotherhood of man. When someone uses the concept of religion to dominate other religions through force and coercion or to take over a nation, they you have to say, "My friend, that's not a religion."
> Michael Savage
> 
> 
> Unless you feel that serial killers are entitled to their freedom of expression.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't given any evidence against Islam I couldn't find on Christianity.
> 
> And Muslims are much nicer than you guys. If you had to choose between getting your head chopped off or burning in hell for eternity I'll get the haircut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an imbecile....but I'm proud of you!
> 
> You have the energy to let everyone know it!!!!
> 
> Roger Scruton writes in "The West and the Rest"
> "Perhaps not unexpected, as the West offers freedoms unheard of in Islamic countries, 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from places where their religion is the official doctrine. They flee to the West, for opportunity, and personal safety, as well as said freedom.
> 
> But...the oddity is that, while settling in the West, many of these refugees begin to develop a hatred for their new home...and plan to take revenge on it with only its final destruction as the fitting punishment.
> Even less understandable, those Muslims who settle and assimilate often have children, brought up in the West, yet identify as opposition to it, and desire its annihilation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread I recount 93......ninety-three......* Islamist plots and successful attacks,* on the homeland:
> 
> President Pinocchio on Terrorism
> 
> 
> *93!
> 
> 
> Check it out, you imbecile!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 93 in how many years? Dillan roof shot and killed 8 black people to start a race war. We should take out all kkk. Or, why haven't we? Seems like the same laws must be protecting both groups.
> 
> I agree no more immigrants but what about the people here now? It does take a few generations for any immigrant to truly assimilate and Muslims a few more. All we can do is stop letting more in and spy on suspected terrorists covertly and nip that shit in the butt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 93 during Obama's term in office.
> "On Tuesday, President Barack Obama stated that “Over [the] last eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland.”
> Talk about something actually deserving of being labeled as “fake news.”
> 
> Imbeciles believe him, don't they.
> Raise your paw.
> 
> 2. I spent a great deal of time posting all 93.
> They are re-education for imbeciles.....your calling.
> Now....get to that thread post haste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ten lone wolf attacks a year. What are you going to do to the ten million innocent Muslim Americans?
Click to expand...



We've already established your bone fides as an imbecile.

This post is simply gilding the lily.



Now....back under the rock.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Ten lone wolf attacks a year. What are you going to do to the ten million innocent Muslim Americans?



Try 29,935 deadly Moslem terror attacks since 9/11.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of Christians cherry pick too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sahih Bukhari
> 
> Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
> 
> 
> Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had  I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
> 
> Volume 9, Book 83, Number 37:
> 
> I said, "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly,  was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."
> 
> Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
> 
> Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his  place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
> 
> Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:
> 
> A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong  with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle
> 
> Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
> 
> There was a fettered man  beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa  ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed.
> 
> Even today, apostasy is punishable by death. Even in current times. After Muhammads death, apostasy was still punishable by death. During the various Islamic Caliphates, apostasy was punishable by death. Only in 1839, under the Ottoman Empire, with the Tanzimat reforms which was an bid to curb western agression was Apostasy attempted to be abolished. Although, in many parts of the Muslim world under the Ottoman rule such as North Africa and the Middle east, the death penalty for apostasy was still inforced. Jamaat-e-Islami Hind based in India also decreed that the penalty for apostasy was death. This was due to the scholarly works of Alqama ibn Qays (681–682), Sufyan al-Thawri(716-778), Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Sahl Abu Bakr al-Sarakhsi, Abu al-Walid al-Baji all condoned the death penalty for apostasy. In 1978, ISLAMIC SCHOLAR, Abdullah al-Mishadd, Head of the Fatawa Council of Al-Azhr offically declared that apostasy is punishable by death.
> 
> Ibn Qudamah, an Islamic scholar, born 1147AD, wrote al-Mughni, said in 9:18 "The apostate should not be put to death until he has been asked to repent three times." This is the view of the majority of scholars, including ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Ata’, al-Nakhaii, Maalik, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ishaaq and others. Time should be allowed for the person to rethink the matter, and the best length of time is three days. - islamqa.com
> 
> so basically, the accused apostate is given 3 days to rethink his decision and if he still doesn't want to become/remain a Muslim he is sentenced to death.
> 
> Many Islamic scholars, ancient ones from Sufyan al-Thawr to quite modern scholars such as Abdullah al-Mishadd decree that apostasy is punishable by death.
Click to expand...

Yes it's a silly religion. It is no exception to the rule.


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ten lone wolf attacks a year. What are you going to do to the ten million innocent Muslim Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try 29,935 deadly Moslem terror attacks since 9/11.
Click to expand...

Well we are at war with them.

We should have camps like we did the japs.


----------



## Brynmr

sealybobo said:


> Yes it's a silly religion. It is no exception to the rule.





PoliticalChic said:


> We've already established your bone fides as an imbecile.


 
Tru dat, supergirl.


----------



## PK1

*If God doesn't exist...*

... then maybe God*s* do
... or maybe not.

Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".


----------



## PK1

*If God doesn't exist...*

then all of you robotic religious nuts are wasting your time & money, unless your stupidity makes you happy.
It's a hedonistic world.


----------



## rightwinger

If God doesn't exist....are all those churches going to give your money back?


----------



## PoliticalChic

PK1 said:


> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".




You must be a government school grad, huh?


Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.

Or this:
“52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh 


Maybe they said it like this:
 Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”


Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
Could be?


----------



## PoliticalChic

PK1 said:


> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> then all of you robotic religious nuts are wasting your time & money, unless your stupidity makes you happy.
> It's a hedonistic world.




A truly objective sign of your mental disability is that you compare your view of religion with the Founder of this nation.....and imagine yours to be the correct view.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
Click to expand...

They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
Click to expand...



Wadda dope.

The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?

I kinda like this quote:
*"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."*
 Helen Keller


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
Click to expand...




Oh......and, you phonies who go on and on about slavery......don't forget to celebrate the Republican Party tomorrow: it's the anniversary of the 13th amendment going into effect (1865)....

"On December 18, the 13th Amendment was officially adopted into the Constitution..."
Slavery abolished in America - Dec 18, 1865 - HISTORY.com


....even though it put a stake through the heart of you racists....er, Democrats.


----------



## PK1

PoliticalChic said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
Click to expand...

_"They told you"? _LOL.
I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?


----------



## PoliticalChic

PK1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
Click to expand...




"...Learned critical thinking skills..."

Fact not in evidence.

Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.


----------



## Dr Grump

PoliticalChic said:


> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?



Anybody who believes in a god has no right calling anybody dumb....just saying'


----------



## PK1

PoliticalChic said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
Click to expand...

Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?


----------



## Dr Grump

PK1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
Click to expand...


Get ready for spamming. Nothing original from PC, just cutting and pasting other's opinions.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
Click to expand...

Can you prove that that is what they believed?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
Click to expand...

If you believe that you are using critical thinking skills, then you don't know what critical thinking is.  What you are practicing is critical theory.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing everything you don't believe to justify what you do believe which of course is wrongheaded thinking.  Critical thinking is to critically challenge what you do believe to test its validity.  You are just another dumbass wanna be pretending to be intellectual.  You don't know shit.  You have never known shit and it is entirely likely that you will die never knowing shit..  You feel me.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda dope.
> 
> The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?
> 
> I kinda like this quote:
> *"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."*
> Helen Keller
Click to expand...


Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
Click to expand...

I believe that we can use what was created as evidence to learn about God. I believe the universe is a self-referential system which behaves as a mind. I believe that we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. I believe that the purpose of the universe was to create beings that know and create. I believe that like every evolutionary phase before it that consciousness is evolving along a similar trajectory. I believe that there are physical and moral laws of nature and that these laws control the evolution of matter since space and time were created. I believe I can prove every fucking one of these points

What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery

That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
Click to expand...

No.  That's not what happened.  I just proved to you what happened.  Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?

Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
Click to expand...

Did the Founding Fathers not write into the Constitution the earliest date the slave trade could be abolished?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
Click to expand...

Did the founders not abolish the slave trade on the earliest date allowed per the Constitution?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
Click to expand...

Did the founders not pass the Northwest Ordinance following the ratification of the Constitution?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
Click to expand...

 Did the Northwest Ordinance not establish that slavery was forbidden in any new federal territories?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
Click to expand...

Did Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States?


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> [
> Can you prove that that is what they believe.



Um, because some, including Washington, owned slaves? Didn't see anybody putting a gun to their heads...


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
Click to expand...

If you keep making dumbass remarks, I will keep making you look like a dumbass.


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can you prove that that is what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, because some, including Washington, owned slaves? Didn't see anybody putting a gun to their heads...
Click to expand...

That's it?  That's all you got?  Please tell me that you have something more, ok?  So that when I show you what being an advocate of slavery looks like you will look even more foolish when you defend those racists, ok?


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can you prove that that is what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, because some, including Washington, owned slaves? Didn't see anybody putting a gun to their heads...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's it?  That's all you got?  Please tell me that you have something more, ok?  So that when I show you what being an advocate of slavery looks like you will look even more foolish when you defend those racists, ok?
Click to expand...


All I've got? All you said was 'prove that that is what they believe'. I would say owning slaves goes a long way towards intent. You do know there were 100s of 1000s of people in the US during that time that DIDN'T own slaves? You know that, right? Quite a few of them could afford them but they found the idea abhorrent. Some of your FF's obviously didn't.
 All you are doing is trying to put a 21st century spin on an 18th century issue. We can all do 'retrospective' any time. Doesn't change the FACTS.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That's not what happened.  I just proved to you what happened.  Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?
> 
> Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.
Click to expand...


Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant

Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had

Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> 
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That's not what happened.  I just proved to you what happened.  Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?
> 
> Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant
> 
> Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had
> 
> Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves
Click to expand...

No.  It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass.  Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.  

but, but, but....


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can you prove that that is what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, because some, including Washington, owned slaves? Didn't see anybody putting a gun to their heads...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's it?  That's all you got?  Please tell me that you have something more, ok?  So that when I show you what being an advocate of slavery looks like you will look even more foolish when you defend those racists, ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I've got? All you said was 'prove that that is what they believe'. I would say owning slaves goes a long way towards intent. You do know there were 100s of 1000s of people in the US during that time that DIDN'T own slaves? You know that, right? Quite a few of them could afford them but they found the idea abhorrent. Some of your FF's obviously didn't.
> All you are doing is trying to put a 21st century spin on an 18th century issue. We can all do 'retrospective' any time. Doesn't change the FACTS.
Click to expand...

Wow, I guess it is true that you can lead a dumbass to the truth but you can't make them see it.  I've got nothing for your kind of stupidity.  Except this of course...

Very few people today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. That's because by the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia


The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document. 

"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839 

In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law. 

Fugitive Slave Act - 1850 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850 

Fugitive Slave Act

31st United States Congress - Wikipedia In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even though slavery was expanded into federal territories in 1820 by the Democratically controlled Congress, a ban on slavery was retained in the Kansas Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats vastly expanded the national area where slavery was permitted as the Kansas and Nebraska territories comprised parts of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. The Democrats were pushing slavery westward across the nation. 

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act 

Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document. 

(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed 

What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym 

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full

And so did others. 

In May of 1854, following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, a number of anti-slavery Democrats along with some anti-slavery members from other parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists formed a new party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights. The name of the new party? The Republican Party. It was named the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party 

Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com 

Republican Party - The Republican Party In The New Millennium 

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Republican Party | PBS

"The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

In 1856, the Democratic platform strongly defended slavery. According to the Democrats of 1856, ending slavery would be dangerous and would ruin the happiness of the people.

“All efforts of the abolitionists... are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.” McKee, The National...Platforms, Democratic Platform of 1856, p.91 

In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights. In effect, Democrats believed slaves were property that could be disposed of at the will of its owner.

Democrats on the Court announced that "blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it." Dred Scott at 407 (1856) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford 

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Dred Scott Decision 

Dred Scott 

Dred Scott: Democratic Reaction

The Democratic Platform for 1860 supported both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857. The Democrats even handed out copies of the Dred Scott decision with their platform to affirm that it was proper to hold African Americans in bondage. 

2. Inasmuch as difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law. 

6. Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect. 

Avalon Project - Democratic Party Platform; June 18, 1860

The Republican platform of 1860, on the other hand, blasted both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and announced its continued intent to end slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans. 

2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the Union of the states, must and shall be preserved. 

5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas - in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons - in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest, and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a confiding people. 

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country. 

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States. 

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic. 

10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.

Republican Party National Platform, 1860

Republicans freed the slaves, Democrats in the North and the South fought against it.

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery was passed by U.S. House of Representatives with unanimous Republican support and intense Democrat opposition.

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat opposition. 

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “Black Codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens, with 100% of Democrats voting no.

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens, where 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.

March 30, 1868 
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States?
Click to expand...

Today on PBS they were talking about the time around Sam Adams day. The church of England warned about catholics, Presbyterians or all the other denomination just as much as we fear Islam today.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> 
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today on PBS they were talking about the time around Sam Adams day. The church of England warned about catholics, Presbyterians or all the other denomination just as much as we fear Islam today.
Click to expand...

Yep, the whack a mole game has been around for a long time.  There's a reason we say birds of a feather flock together.  I believe in tolerance that is more like live and let live rather than indiscriminate indiscriminateness.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today on PBS they were talking about the time around Sam Adams day. The church of England warned about catholics, Presbyterians or all the other denomination just as much as we fear Islam today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, the whack a mole game has been around for a long time.  There's a reason we say birds of a feather flock together.  I believe in tolerance that is more like live and let live rather than indiscriminate indiscriminateness.
Click to expand...

In hindsight we see their worries about people who worship a foreign prince (the Pope) was nothing to be concerned about.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today on PBS they were talking about the time around Sam Adams day. The church of England warned about catholics, Presbyterians or all the other denomination just as much as we fear Islam today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, the whack a mole game has been around for a long time.  There's a reason we say birds of a feather flock together.  I believe in tolerance that is more like live and let live rather than indiscriminate indiscriminateness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In hindsight we see their worries about people who worship a foreign prince (the Pope) was nothing to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

lol, that sure was a thinly veiled slight.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> 
> 
> Did Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today on PBS they were talking about the time around Sam Adams day. The church of England warned about catholics, Presbyterians or all the other denomination just as much as we fear Islam today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, the whack a mole game has been around for a long time.  There's a reason we say birds of a feather flock together.  I believe in tolerance that is more like live and let live rather than indiscriminate indiscriminateness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In hindsight we see their worries about people who worship a foreign prince (the Pope) was nothing to be concerned about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol,that sure was a thinly veiled slight.
Click to expand...

Very interesting times. They told about how preachers of churches that weren't sanctioned were imprisoned and they would preach from their prison cells.

This was in Virginia not too long ago. We aren't that much different than the people back then. I'm glad we've worked it out so you can worship who you want or not worship if you don't want to. No religion scares me except Islam.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That's not what happened.  I just proved to you what happened.  Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?
> 
> Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant
> 
> Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had
> 
> Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass.  Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.
> 
> but, but, but....
Click to expand...

Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed

It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that that is what they believed?
> 
> Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.
> 
> The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
> 
> In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.
> 
> Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia
> 
> "The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."
> 
> Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
> 
> Daniel Webster
> 
> THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1
> 
> March 7, 1850
> 
> (In the Senate)
> 
> http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf
> 
> Page 271
> 
> "And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."
> 
> 
> Page 273
> 
> "...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."
> 
> 
> Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech
> 
> Alexander H. Stephens
> 
> Savannah, Georgia
> 
> March 21, 1861
> 
> 
> “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> "The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "
> 
> 
> So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.
> 
> "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
> 
> 
> So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.
> 
> The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
> 
> In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance
> 
> And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That's not what happened.  I just proved to you what happened.  Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?
> 
> Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant
> 
> Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had
> 
> Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass.  Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.
> 
> but, but, but....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed
> 
> It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South.  Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus.  Exactly as I predicted.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders failed to handle the issue of slavery
> 
> That failure resulted in a war that cost us 600,000 lives only 87 years later
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That's not what happened.  I just proved to you what happened.  Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?
> 
> Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant
> 
> Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had
> 
> Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass.  Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.
> 
> but, but, but....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed
> 
> It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South.  Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus.  Exactly as I predicted.
Click to expand...


Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy

In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"


----------



## BreezeWood

.
and where was christianity to be found in the slaves hour of need ...



DREAD SCOTT


"The Taney Court ruled that persons of African descent could not be, _*nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution,*_ and thus the plaintiff (Scott) was without legal standing to file a suit. _*The framers of the Constitution*_, Taney famously wrote, _*believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery*_ for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."[3] The court also declared the Missouri Compromise (1820) unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories. Taney died during the final months of the American Civil War on the same day that his home state of Maryland abolished slavery.


He is also notable as the first _*Roman Catholic*_ (and first non-Protestant) appointed both to a presidential cabinet, as Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson, as well as to the Court."


_*He is also notable as the first Roman Catholic ...

*_

... out front where everyone can worship their religion of denial and oppression.
_*
*_
.


----------



## rightwinger

BreezeWood said:


> .
> and where was christianity to be found in the slaves hour of need ...
> 
> 
> 
> DREAD SCOTT
> 
> 
> "The Taney Court ruled that persons of African descent could not be, _*nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution,*_ and thus the plaintiff (Scott) was without legal standing to file a suit. _*The framers of the Constitution*_, Taney famously wrote, _*believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery*_ for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."[3] The court also declared the Missouri Compromise (1820) unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories. Taney died during the final months of the American Civil War on the same day that his home state of Maryland abolished slavery.
> 
> 
> He is also notable as the first _*Roman Catholic*_ (and first non-Protestant) appointed both to a presidential cabinet, as Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson, as well as to the Court."
> 
> 
> _*He is also notable as the first Roman Catholic ...
> 
> *_
> 
> ... out front where everyone can worship their religion of denial and oppression.
> _*
> *_
> .


As offensive as the findings of Taney were, they reflect the views of America not just in 1860 but at our founding. Negros were no better than property and deserved no more rights than a horse or a cow.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That's not what happened.  I just proved to you what happened.  Is there anything I wrote, that you believe is false?
> 
> Please tell me what I got wrong so that I may correct the error of my beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant
> 
> Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had
> 
> Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass.  Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.
> 
> but, but, but....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed
> 
> It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South.  Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus.  Exactly as I predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy
> 
> In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"
Click to expand...

They supported slavery.  That is what we are talking about, right?  Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats.  If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lot of cut and paste there but irrelevant
> 
> Banning the import of new slaves did nothing to stop the breeding of the four million slaves we already had
> 
> Their failure to resolve the issue resulted in untold misery for millions of slaves
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass.  Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.
> 
> but, but, but....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed
> 
> It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South.  Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus.  Exactly as I predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy
> 
> In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They supported slavery.  That is what we are talking about, right?  Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats.  If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense

Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It was a lot of facts and a lot of me handing you your ass.  Maybe you should direct your ire towards the Democratic Party as they were the ones who expanded slavery.
> 
> but, but, but....
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed
> 
> It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South.  Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus.  Exactly as I predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy
> 
> In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They supported slavery.  That is what we are talking about, right?  Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats.  If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete nonsense
> 
> Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk
Click to expand...

Republicans didn't oppose civil rights.  Republicans championed civil rights.  

*In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]

[133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.

[134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.

[135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”

*Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.

The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery only existed for 25 years after the Democratic Party was formed
> 
> It was a function of the southern Big Cotton economy and not a political function
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South.  Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus.  Exactly as I predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy
> 
> In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They supported slavery.  That is what we are talking about, right?  Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats.  If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete nonsense
> 
> Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans didn't oppose civil rights.  Republicans championed civil rights.
> 
> *In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]
> 
> [133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.
> 
> [134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.
> 
> [135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”
> 
> *Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
> It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
> 
> The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.
Click to expand...

FAIL

I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights

Try again


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, the Democrats in the North marched in lock step with the Democrats in the South.  Look at how hard you try to defend the Democratic Party after you threw the founding fathers under the bus.  Exactly as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy
> 
> In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They supported slavery.  That is what we are talking about, right?  Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats.  If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete nonsense
> 
> Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans didn't oppose civil rights.  Republicans championed civil rights.
> 
> *In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]
> 
> [133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.
> 
> [134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.
> 
> [135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”
> 
> *Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
> It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
> 
> The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FAIL
> 
> I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights
> 
> Try again
Click to expand...

Your logic eludes me.  The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only *23 *percent of Democrats (*16* of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?

38th United States Congress - Wikipedia


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy
> 
> In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"
> 
> 
> 
> They supported slavery.  That is what we are talking about, right?  Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats.  If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete nonsense
> 
> Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans didn't oppose civil rights.  Republicans championed civil rights.
> 
> *In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]
> 
> [133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.
> 
> [134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.
> 
> [135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”
> 
> *Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
> It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
> 
> The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FAIL
> 
> I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic eludes me.  The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only *23 *percent of Democrats (*16* of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?
> 
> 38th United States Congress - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Why do Republicans struggle so much with mathematics?

Most Democrats were in the SOUTH. Those in the NORTH voted for the 13th amendment

The conclusion to be drawn is that both slavery and civil rights were north/south issues not democrat/republican issues


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They supported slavery.  That is what we are talking about, right?  Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats.  If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense
> 
> Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans didn't oppose civil rights.  Republicans championed civil rights.
> 
> *In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]
> 
> [133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.
> 
> [134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.
> 
> [135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”
> 
> *Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
> It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
> 
> The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FAIL
> 
> I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic eludes me.  The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only *23 *percent of Democrats (*16* of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?
> 
> 38th United States Congress - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do Republicans struggle so much with mathematics?
> 
> Most Democrats were in the SOUTH. Those in the NORTH voted for the 13th amendment
> 
> The conclusion to be drawn is that both slavery and civil rights were north/south issues not democrat/republican issues
Click to expand...

At the time the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress, the only Democrats in Congress were Northern Democrats.  77% of Northern Democrats voted against the 13th Amendment.  You reported my post, didn't you?  That's weak.


----------



## RWS

sealybobo said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lady who survived the black church shooting said if dillan roof doesn't get the death penalty then he will be visited every night by 9 angels talking about Jesus. Oh brother. And she looked so sure if herself. I suppose that lie provides her comfort.
Click to expand...


Whatever gives her peace is good. I never question a person's faith. In the case that you mention, I personally hope there is a Hell, with eternal damnation, and that he forever rots there! Squeeking out silently into blackness is not a proper penalty for him. I can just hope he suffers so bad in his final days, that people like him learn something. But we all know that they won't... 

Because racism such as his, is as much a religion as the others. It is fueled by people seeking money, and promoting lies and hatred of others. And innocently passed along by parents to their children.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's an eternal universe? Our universe is just one of many. Think of a lava lamp only infinite.
> 
> You're thinking too small. Think outside the universe or beyond it. What's beyond that? Are you saying God doesn't exist outside our universe?
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
Click to expand...


Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book? 

The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'

It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"! 

But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass! 

It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
Click to expand...


You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?

And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?

And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?

So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?

And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.

Or he doesn't have the power to care.

Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.

Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?


_*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_


----------



## RWS

Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.

Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!

Wow...

And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda dope.
> 
> The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?
> 
> I kinda like this quote:
> *"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."*
> Helen Keller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?
Click to expand...


"Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"

Of course they did.

You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.

Second paragraph of Article VII.
Post it, please.
And never make that mistake again.



Oh......and Merry Christmas


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda dope.
> 
> The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?
> 
> I kinda like this quote:
> *"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."*
> Helen Keller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
Click to expand...


*Article VII*
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.


Where is the reference to Jesus?


----------



## hobelim

RWS said:


> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist?



Scripture clearly teaches that if people disregard the law and contaminate and defile their minds God will become hidden....

Is it possible to see anything clearly through a filthy lens?


Deuteronomy 28: 15-68


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> 
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda dope.
> 
> The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?
> 
> I kinda like this quote:
> *"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."*
> Helen Keller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
Click to expand...




Are you this stupid, or a congenital liar?
Oh...you answered that already with you avi.


This was the request:
Second paragraph of Article VII.
Post it, please.
And never make that mistake again.



Second paragraph.


Post it, please.
And never make that mistake again.


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lady who survived the black church shooting said if dillan roof doesn't get the death penalty then he will be visited every night by 9 angels talking about Jesus. Oh brother. And she looked so sure if herself. I suppose that lie provides her comfort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever gives her peace is good. I never question a person's faith. In the case that you mention, I personally hope there is a Hell, with eternal damnation, and that he forever rots there! Squeeking out silently into blackness is not a proper penalty for him. I can just hope he suffers so bad in his final days, that people like him learn something. But we all know that they won't...
> 
> Because racism such as his, is as much a religion as the others. It is fueled by people seeking money, and promoting lies and hatred of others. And innocently passed along by parents to their children.
Click to expand...

I know a guy like Dillon. He's not a racist but he has other crazy conspiracy theories about other things similar to how Dillon believed that blacks are killing and raping all our white women. I kept trying to find a way to get him to stop calling and coming over but he kept coming and calling. One day he did something, can't even remember what it was now, but I told him to lose my number and didn't pick up the phone. I figure if that pissed him off there's nothing I can do about that but had I told him I think he's a loser whos crazy I think that would have put me on his dillan roof list. Lol..

Who are dillan roofs friends and parents? Do they believe dillan is going to burn in hell for all eternity? I don't. Even he doesn't deserve that. Maybe I would torture him for 100 days and not let his soul into heaven. But youd have to be evil yourself to torture something for eternity.

I would love to know if this guy believes in God. I bet he does. The crazy guy I knew believes in God in fact he got very uncomfortable when I suggested it's not. He was real anti Muslim and Jewish. The Jews own everything and Muslims want to take over America. I guess he is racist just not against blacks.


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!


Political chick doesn't have a problem with Mormons but doesn't like Muslims. And eventually when she realizes the Mormon story is offensive to Christians shell want to ban that too. If any religion gets too popular shell shut it down.

I hope humans are waking up to the truth. No religion is real.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda dope.
> 
> The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?
> 
> I kinda like this quote:
> *"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."*
> Helen Keller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you this stupid, or a congenital liar?
> Oh...you answered that already with you avi.
> 
> 
> This was the request:
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Second paragraph.
> 
> 
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
Click to expand...


*Article VII*
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Still no mention of Jesus


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Or this:
> “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh
> 
> 
> Maybe they said it like this:
> Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they told you the truth and you're simply as dumb as asphalt.
> Could be?
> 
> 
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda dope.
> 
> The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?
> 
> I kinda like this quote:
> *"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."*
> Helen Keller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
Click to expand...



This was the request:
Second paragraph of Article VII.
Post it, please.
And never make that mistake again.

I'll take your refusal to post the second paragraph a proof that you know that....as usual....I'm correct again.

You're dismissed.


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
Click to expand...


Im trying to think religiously. They would say we have free will or that everything happens for a reason or that we can't have all the answers or its gods will.

Fact is your questions debunk the God that supposedly visits cares and occasionally interveens. Unless you believe one of the thousands of religions and in that case pick any one of them they have all the answers.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also believed in slavery and the inferior status of women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda dope.
> 
> The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?
> 
> I kinda like this quote:
> *"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."*
> Helen Keller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This was the request:
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> I'll take your refusal to post the second paragraph a proof that you know that....as usual....I'm correct again.
> 
> You're dismissed.
Click to expand...

Still no mention of Jesus

*Article VII*
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

That's all that is in Article VII


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda dope.
> 
> The anti-Americanism didn't work for Bill's wife, but you'll keep riding that horse, huh?
> 
> I kinda like this quote:
> *"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his."*
> Helen Keller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This was the request:
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> I'll take your refusal to post the second paragraph a proof that you know that....as usual....I'm correct again.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no mention of Jesus
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
Click to expand...




Still no second paragraph


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the 2nd law of thermodynamics still precludes an infinite universe with usable energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book?
> 
> The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'
> 
> It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"!
> 
> But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass!
> 
> It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?
Click to expand...

Im noticing a lot of usmb Republicans claim to be engineers. I'm calling bullshit here and now


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This was the request:
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> I'll take your refusal to post the second paragraph a proof that you know that....as usual....I'm correct again.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no mention of Jesus
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no second paragraph
Click to expand...


There is only one paragraph no matter how badly you want there to be a second


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd...show where northern Democrats supported the Confederacy
> 
> In defense of our founders....they were crippled by the slave rapers in the south who insisted on protecting their "peculiar institution"
> 
> 
> 
> They supported slavery.  That is what we are talking about, right?  Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats.  If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete nonsense
> 
> Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans didn't oppose civil rights.  Republicans championed civil rights.
> 
> *In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]
> 
> [133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.
> 
> [134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.
> 
> [135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”
> 
> *Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
> It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
> 
> The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FAIL
> 
> I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic eludes me.  The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only *23 *percent of Democrats (*16* of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?
> 
> 38th United States Congress - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Then why do blacks today, even the successful ones, think the GOP is racist?

Republicans now have a chance to win blacks over. Remember "what have you got to lose"? This goes for the poorly educated blue collar whites. Time for Republicans to show us what they got.

Please don't fuck us like bush Tom delay and Dennis hastert did


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They supported slavery.  That is what we are talking about, right?  Even in the 60's the northern Democrats were in cahoots with the southern Democrats.  If you don't believe me, listen to Malcolm X with your own ears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense
> 
> Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans didn't oppose civil rights.  Republicans championed civil rights.
> 
> *In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]
> 
> [133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.
> 
> [134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.
> 
> [135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”
> 
> *Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
> It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
> 
> The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FAIL
> 
> I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic eludes me.  The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only *23 *percent of Democrats (*16* of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?
> 
> 38th United States Congress - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do blacks today, even the successful ones, think the GOP is racist?
> 
> Republicans now have a chance to win blacks over. Remember "what have you got to lose"? This goes for the poorly educated blue collar whites. Time for Republicans to show us what they got.
> 
> Please don't fuck us like bush Tom delay and Dennis hastert did
Click to expand...

Who says they do?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense
> 
> Show where southern Republicans opposed civil rights and we can start to talk
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans didn't oppose civil rights.  Republicans championed civil rights.
> 
> *In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]
> 
> [133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.
> 
> [134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.
> 
> [135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”
> 
> *Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
> It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
> 
> The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FAIL
> 
> I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic eludes me.  The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only *23 *percent of Democrats (*16* of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?
> 
> 38th United States Congress - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do blacks today, even the successful ones, think the GOP is racist?
> 
> Republicans now have a chance to win blacks over. Remember "what have you got to lose"? This goes for the poorly educated blue collar whites. Time for Republicans to show us what they got.
> 
> Please don't fuck us like bush Tom delay and Dennis hastert did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says they do?
Click to expand...

You ever watch blackish? But you make a good point. Us libs can't have it both ways. We say southern Democrats were racist but now southern Republicans are. So it's possible for parties to change. You claim the GOP is not racist and it's the best party for working class people. Moving forward let's see.

I will forgive all past sins. Let's forget the past. I have an open mind. God if you're out there give me a sign


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
Click to expand...

No.  I am more of a deist.  I believe the laws of nature or such that people like yourself will eventually suffer the predictable surprises of normalizing their deviance.  

As an engineer I see the natural cycles that have occurred throughout man's history and the role that violating the moral law plays in it.  As an engineer I see how you use critical theory to criticize everything that you don't believe to justify what you do believe and convince yourself that you are using critical thinking.  You're not.  Critical thinking is challenging what you do believe to test its validity.  You don't have a positive argument for your beliefs.  You have negative arguments for what you don't believe such as your path not taken argument you are making now.  

No, that doesn't mean He doesn't care.  It means that it is not virtuous if we are made to be virtuous.  Don't worry, the laws of compensation are such that virtue is increasing.  It just isn't in a straight line.  It is cyclical.  It is Darwinian.  

The reality is that there is plenty of evidence for His existence.  You just don't accept any of it, but regardless, you are being pruned by Him through the natural laws of right and wrong, even if you don't recognize it or accept it.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans didn't oppose civil rights.  Republicans championed civil rights.
> 
> *In 1957, and then again in 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower made bold civil rights proposals to increase black voting rights and protections. *[133] *Since Congress was solidly in the hands of the Democrats, they cut the heart out of his bills before passing weak, watered-down versions of his proposals. *[134]Nevertheless, to focus national attention upon the plight of blacks, Eisenhower started a civil rights commission and was the first President to appoint a black to an executive position in the White House. [135]
> 
> [133] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Low that Ended Racial Segregation, Robert D. Loevy, editor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 26, 27, 33; see also Civil Rights — 1957: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty-Fifth Congress First Session (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 125-131; Civil Rights Act of 1960: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Eighty Sixth Congress Second Session on H.R. 8601 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 2-7.
> 
> [134] The Civil Rights Act of 1964, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30, 31.
> 
> [135] The White House Historical Association online, “African Americans and the White House: the 1950s”
> 
> *Republican Senator Everett Dirksen – The Key To Modern-era Civil Rights Legislation
> It was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act.* In fact, Dirksen was instrumental in the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed Senator Dirksen’s “able and courageous Leadership”, and "The Chicago Defender”, the largest black-owned daily at that time, praised Senator Dirksen “for the grand manner of his generalship behind the passage of the best civil rights measures that have ever been enacted into law since Reconstruction”.
> 
> The chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd, a former official in the Ku Klux Klan. None of these racist Democrats became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL
> 
> I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic eludes me.  The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only *23 *percent of Democrats (*16* of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?
> 
> 38th United States Congress - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do blacks today, even the successful ones, think the GOP is racist?
> 
> Republicans now have a chance to win blacks over. Remember "what have you got to lose"? This goes for the poorly educated blue collar whites. Time for Republicans to show us what they got.
> 
> Please don't fuck us like bush Tom delay and Dennis hastert did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ever watch blackish? But you make a good point. Us libs can't have it both ways. We say southern Democrats were racist but now southern Republicans are. So it's possible for parties to change. You claim the GOP is not racist and it's the best party for working class people. Moving forward let's see.
> 
> I will forgive all past sins. Let's forget the past. I have an open mind. God if you're out there give me a sign
Click to expand...

The more Republican the south became the less racist it became.  All of the bad things that happened in the south happened when Democrats were in charge of the south.  There is your sign.  Do you need another one?  What good has voting for Democrats as a block done for blacks?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!


They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.  

Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity. 

Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.

So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I am more of a deist.  I believe the laws of nature or such that people like yourself will eventually suffer the predictable surprises of normalizing their deviance.
> 
> As an engineer I see the natural cycles that have occurred throughout man's history and the role that violating the moral law plays in it.  As an engineer I see how you use critical theory to criticize everything that you don't believe to justify what you do believe and convince yourself that you are using critical thinking.  You're not.  Critical thinking is challenging what you do believe to test its validity.  You don't have a positive argument for your beliefs.  You have negative arguments for what you don't believe such as your path not taken argument you are making now.
> 
> No, that doesn't mean He doesn't care.  It means that it is not virtuous if we are made to be virtuous.  Don't worry, the laws of compensation are such that virtue is increasing.  It just isn't in a straight line.  It is cyclical.  It is Darwinian.
> 
> The reality is that there is plenty of evidence for His existence.  You just don't accept any of it, but regardless, you are being pruned by Him through the natural laws of right and wrong, even if you don't recognize it or accept it.
Click to expand...

Give us the 3-5 pieces of evidence you have for God's existence. 

For example I could give you a list of 1000 pieces of scientific evidence that evolution is real. Give me your top 3-5. Short list

Nothing you present is going to prove there must be a creator. We've seen all the arguments. 

And I'll even give you there could be a creator. That is one possibility. What evidence do you have?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAIL
> 
> I asked you to show where SOUTHERN Republicans supported Civil rights
> 
> Try again
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic eludes me.  The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only *23 *percent of Democrats (*16* of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?
> 
> 38th United States Congress - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do blacks today, even the successful ones, think the GOP is racist?
> 
> Republicans now have a chance to win blacks over. Remember "what have you got to lose"? This goes for the poorly educated blue collar whites. Time for Republicans to show us what they got.
> 
> Please don't fuck us like bush Tom delay and Dennis hastert did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ever watch blackish? But you make a good point. Us libs can't have it both ways. We say southern Democrats were racist but now southern Republicans are. So it's possible for parties to change. You claim the GOP is not racist and it's the best party for working class people. Moving forward let's see.
> 
> I will forgive all past sins. Let's forget the past. I have an open mind. God if you're out there give me a sign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more Republican the south became the less racist it became.  All of the bad things that happened in the south happened when Democrats were in charge of the south.
Click to expand...

Well I think the KKK in the 80s, 90's, 2000 and 2010s vote GOP, no?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe 100% in thermodynamic science?  Why is it you doubt all other sciences but you put all your eggs in the thermodynamic basket?
> 
> "The state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time."  Who says?  Who says it won't slow down or stop eventually?  Is that a fact or scientific consensus?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book?
> 
> The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'
> 
> It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"!
> 
> But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass!
> 
> It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im noticing a lot of usmb Republicans claim to be engineers. I'm calling bullshit here and now
Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone else who has made this claim and I don't care if you believe me or not.  What do you do for a living?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
Click to expand...

An atheist was the first to suggest we weren't the center of the universe and stars were other Suns. Religion killed them for suggesting such blasphemy and herisy. 

Imagine we are in Iraq living under sharia law. You the devout Muslim is arguing how Islam is doing more harm than good. Do you agree? And agree or not does that make Islam any less fake? How much comfort a lie gives you or us doesn't change the fact it's a lie. And maybe that lie is holding you/us back?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book?
> 
> The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'
> 
> It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"!
> 
> But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass!
> 
> It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im noticing a lot of usmb Republicans claim to be engineers. I'm calling bullshit here and now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of anyone else who has made this claim and I don't care if you believe me or not.  What do you do for a living?
Click to expand...

I sell machines that measure important parts. Cmm's


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I am more of a deist.  I believe the laws of nature or such that people like yourself will eventually suffer the predictable surprises of normalizing their deviance.
> 
> As an engineer I see the natural cycles that have occurred throughout man's history and the role that violating the moral law plays in it.  As an engineer I see how you use critical theory to criticize everything that you don't believe to justify what you do believe and convince yourself that you are using critical thinking.  You're not.  Critical thinking is challenging what you do believe to test its validity.  You don't have a positive argument for your beliefs.  You have negative arguments for what you don't believe such as your path not taken argument you are making now.
> 
> No, that doesn't mean He doesn't care.  It means that it is not virtuous if we are made to be virtuous.  Don't worry, the laws of compensation are such that virtue is increasing.  It just isn't in a straight line.  It is cyclical.  It is Darwinian.
> 
> The reality is that there is plenty of evidence for His existence.  You just don't accept any of it, but regardless, you are being pruned by Him through the natural laws of right and wrong, even if you don't recognize it or accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give us the 3-5 pieces of evidence you have for God's existence.
> 
> For example I could give you a list of 1000 pieces of scientific evidence that evolution is real. Give me your top 3-5. Short list
> 
> Nothing you present is going to prove there must be a creator. We've seen all the arguments.
> 
> And I'll even give you there could be a creator. That is one possibility. What evidence do you have?
Click to expand...

I don't deny evolution.  I don't see any inconsistencies at all.   I believe we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time that beings that know and create will eventually arise.  This means that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature the moment that space and time were created.  I have already explained to you the source of my evidence.  Creation itself and everything in it and everything that has happened since it was created is my evidence.  The universe is a self-referential system which behaves like a mind.  I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.   I believe that consciousness is evolving just like every phase in the evolution of matter evolved before it.  I believe that the purpose of the universe is consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.  The process that controls this evolution is called Natural Law.  

Can you make a positive argument for why you believe there is no creator?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have forgotten more science then you will ever know.  So your I don't believe in science argument rings a little hollow. I've been a practicing engineer for over 30 years.  What exactly have you done which makes you an expert on science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book?
> 
> The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'
> 
> It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"!
> 
> But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass!
> 
> It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im noticing a lot of usmb Republicans claim to be engineers. I'm calling bullshit here and now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of anyone else who has made this claim and I don't care if you believe me or not.  What do you do for a living?
Click to expand...

Lots of usmb right wingers do. If I'm arguing science evolution or global warming they say they are a scientist. Turns out they are in IT. Lol or a janitor. Or they work for an engineer. When someone calls us for tech support I say let me connect you with an engineer


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> 
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book?
> 
> The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'
> 
> It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"!
> 
> But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass!
> 
> It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im noticing a lot of usmb Republicans claim to be engineers. I'm calling bullshit here and now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of anyone else who has made this claim and I don't care if you believe me or not.  What do you do for a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I sell machines that measure important parts. Cmm's
Click to expand...

You mean like CNC systems?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book?
> 
> The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'
> 
> It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"!
> 
> But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass!
> 
> It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im noticing a lot of usmb Republicans claim to be engineers. I'm calling bullshit here and now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of anyone else who has made this claim and I don't care if you believe me or not.  What do you do for a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I sell machines that measure important parts. Cmm's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like CNC systems?
Click to expand...

No coordinate measurement machines but close


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I am more of a deist.  I believe the laws of nature or such that people like yourself will eventually suffer the predictable surprises of normalizing their deviance.
> 
> As an engineer I see the natural cycles that have occurred throughout man's history and the role that violating the moral law plays in it.  As an engineer I see how you use critical theory to criticize everything that you don't believe to justify what you do believe and convince yourself that you are using critical thinking.  You're not.  Critical thinking is challenging what you do believe to test its validity.  You don't have a positive argument for your beliefs.  You have negative arguments for what you don't believe such as your path not taken argument you are making now.
> 
> No, that doesn't mean He doesn't care.  It means that it is not virtuous if we are made to be virtuous.  Don't worry, the laws of compensation are such that virtue is increasing.  It just isn't in a straight line.  It is cyclical.  It is Darwinian.
> 
> The reality is that there is plenty of evidence for His existence.  You just don't accept any of it, but regardless, you are being pruned by Him through the natural laws of right and wrong, even if you don't recognize it or accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give us the 3-5 pieces of evidence you have for God's existence.
> 
> For example I could give you a list of 1000 pieces of scientific evidence that evolution is real. Give me your top 3-5. Short list
> 
> Nothing you present is going to prove there must be a creator. We've seen all the arguments.
> 
> And I'll even give you there could be a creator. That is one possibility. What evidence do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't deny evolution.  I don't see any inconsistencies at all.   I believe we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time that beings that know and create will eventually arise.  This means that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature the moment that space and time were created.  I have already explained to you the source of my evidence.  Creation itself and everything in it and everything that has happened since it was created is my evidence.  The universe is a self-referential system which behaves like a mind.  I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.   I believe that consciousness is evolving just like every phase in the evolution of matter evolved before it.  I believe that the purpose of the universe is consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.  The process that controls this evolution is called Natural Law.
> 
> Can you make a positive argument for why you believe there is no creator?
Click to expand...

God may not be necessary for universes to exist. It seems like based on human minds we made this up. It was what we concluded a long time ago and we've believed it for so long without any evidence. And because we didn't have evidence moses manufactured evidence and the abrahamic religions were all born. No more multiple gods.

Maybe universes just occur and life occurs. It sucks but the truth is this is unknowable. But remember your God doesn't send me to hell for eternity just for not believing, does he?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An atheist was the first to suggest we weren't the center of the universe and stars were other Suns. Religion killed them for suggesting such blasphemy and herisy.
> 
> Imagine we are in Iraq living under sharia law. You the devout Muslim is arguing how Islam is doing more harm than good. Do you agree? And agree or not does that make Islam any less fake? How much comfort a lie gives you or us doesn't change the fact it's a lie. And maybe that lie is holding you/us back?
Click to expand...

Again... you are making a critical theory argument.  Your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.

Why do you believe that an atheist was the first to suggest we weren't the center of the universe and stars were other Suns and that religion killed them for suggesting such blasphemy and heresy.  If you are talking about Galileo, I don't believe you have your facts correct.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book?
> 
> The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'
> 
> It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"!
> 
> But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass!
> 
> It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?
> 
> 
> 
> Im noticing a lot of usmb Republicans claim to be engineers. I'm calling bullshit here and now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of anyone else who has made this claim and I don't care if you believe me or not.  What do you do for a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I sell machines that measure important parts. Cmm's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like CNC systems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No coordinate measurement machines but close
Click to expand...

Sure, but they are used in CNC applications, right?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I am more of a deist.  I believe the laws of nature or such that people like yourself will eventually suffer the predictable surprises of normalizing their deviance.
> 
> As an engineer I see the natural cycles that have occurred throughout man's history and the role that violating the moral law plays in it.  As an engineer I see how you use critical theory to criticize everything that you don't believe to justify what you do believe and convince yourself that you are using critical thinking.  You're not.  Critical thinking is challenging what you do believe to test its validity.  You don't have a positive argument for your beliefs.  You have negative arguments for what you don't believe such as your path not taken argument you are making now.
> 
> No, that doesn't mean He doesn't care.  It means that it is not virtuous if we are made to be virtuous.  Don't worry, the laws of compensation are such that virtue is increasing.  It just isn't in a straight line.  It is cyclical.  It is Darwinian.
> 
> The reality is that there is plenty of evidence for His existence.  You just don't accept any of it, but regardless, you are being pruned by Him through the natural laws of right and wrong, even if you don't recognize it or accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give us the 3-5 pieces of evidence you have for God's existence.
> 
> For example I could give you a list of 1000 pieces of scientific evidence that evolution is real. Give me your top 3-5. Short list
> 
> Nothing you present is going to prove there must be a creator. We've seen all the arguments.
> 
> And I'll even give you there could be a creator. That is one possibility. What evidence do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't deny evolution.  I don't see any inconsistencies at all.   I believe we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time that beings that know and create will eventually arise.  This means that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature the moment that space and time were created.  I have already explained to you the source of my evidence.  Creation itself and everything in it and everything that has happened since it was created is my evidence.  The universe is a self-referential system which behaves like a mind.  I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.   I believe that consciousness is evolving just like every phase in the evolution of matter evolved before it.  I believe that the purpose of the universe is consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.  The process that controls this evolution is called Natural Law.
> 
> Can you make a positive argument for why you believe there is no creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God may not be necessary for universes to exist. It seems like based on human minds we made this up. It was what we concluded a long time ago and we've believed it for so long without any evidence. And because we didn't have evidence moses manufactured evidence and the abrahamic religions were all born. No more multiple gods.
> 
> Maybe universes just occur and life occurs. It sucks but the truth is this is unknowable. But remember your God doesn't send me to hell for eternity just for not believing, does he?
Click to expand...

They had the exact same evidence we have.  The only evidence anyone will ever have.  Human beings today are not much different than human beings 10,000 years ago.  The human condition has been known to us a very long time.  You are presuming that the writings in the Bible are literal.  You assume that when they spoke of God's vengeance they literally believed that God was personally responsible for smiting them.  The problem is they would know that when they violated the moral law nothing bad happened to them.  Often times they got away with it.  Just like we do today.  That doesn't mean there is no moral law.  It only means that the consequences of violating it are not immediate.  It also doesn't mean there are no consequences either.  We know from our own experiences that people who behave without virtue will naturally suffer predictable consequences.  It may seem like a surprise to them but we all know that if you cheat or steal or kill long enough, your actions will have consequences.  So while you read the Bible literally, I don't.  I understand that the Bible is a how to book.  It is not a book of fairy tales.  It is a book of profound wisdom.  

I don't know what heaven and hell are.  My human mind cannot comprehend anything outside of space and time.  The best I can say is that our matter was created at the moment space and time were created and that when we die the energy that animates us will either return to the creator or it won't.  Heaven is being joined with the source of our energy.  Hell is being separated from the source of our energy.  Based on what I know, He does not destroy what He creates.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An atheist was the first to suggest we weren't the center of the universe and stars were other Suns. Religion killed them for suggesting such blasphemy and herisy.
> 
> Imagine we are in Iraq living under sharia law. You the devout Muslim is arguing how Islam is doing more harm than good. Do you agree? And agree or not does that make Islam any less fake? How much comfort a lie gives you or us doesn't change the fact it's a lie. And maybe that lie is holding you/us back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... you are making a critical theory argument.  Your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Why do you believe that an atheist was the first to suggest we weren't the center of the universe and stars were other Suns and that religion killed them for suggesting such blasphemy and heresy.  If you are talking about Galileo, I don't believe you have your facts correct.
Click to expand...

Bruno giordano


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im noticing a lot of usmb Republicans claim to be engineers. I'm calling bullshit here and now
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone else who has made this claim and I don't care if you believe me or not.  What do you do for a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I sell machines that measure important parts. Cmm's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like CNC systems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No coordinate measurement machines but close
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but they are used in CNC applications, right?
Click to expand...

Sure


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic eludes me.  The 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only *23 *percent of Democrats (*16* of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. You do realize that at this time only northern Democrats were in the House and Senate, right?
> 
> 38th United States Congress - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do blacks today, even the successful ones, think the GOP is racist?
> 
> Republicans now have a chance to win blacks over. Remember "what have you got to lose"? This goes for the poorly educated blue collar whites. Time for Republicans to show us what they got.
> 
> Please don't fuck us like bush Tom delay and Dennis hastert did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who says they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ever watch blackish? But you make a good point. Us libs can't have it both ways. We say southern Democrats were racist but now southern Republicans are. So it's possible for parties to change. You claim the GOP is not racist and it's the best party for working class people. Moving forward let's see.
> 
> I will forgive all past sins. Let's forget the past. I have an open mind. God if you're out there give me a sign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more Republican the south became the less racist it became.  All of the bad things that happened in the south happened when Democrats were in charge of the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I think the KKK in the 80s, 90's, 2000 and 2010s vote GOP, no?
Click to expand...

I don't believe they did.  Why would they?  Republicans want to get blacks off of the economic plantation.  Republicans want to end the black genocide of abortion.  Democrats want to pay for your abortions.  They even have it written in their party platform for crying out loud.  Why else do they put planned parenthood abortion mills close to black population centers?  I believe the KKK are the biggest supporters and donors of planned parenthood.  You do realize that black babies are three times more likely to be aborted than white babies, right?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An atheist was the first to suggest we weren't the center of the universe and stars were other Suns. Religion killed them for suggesting such blasphemy and herisy.
> 
> Imagine we are in Iraq living under sharia law. You the devout Muslim is arguing how Islam is doing more harm than good. Do you agree? And agree or not does that make Islam any less fake? How much comfort a lie gives you or us doesn't change the fact it's a lie. And maybe that lie is holding you/us back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... you are making a critical theory argument.  Your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Why do you believe that an atheist was the first to suggest we weren't the center of the universe and stars were other Suns and that religion killed them for suggesting such blasphemy and heresy.  If you are talking about Galileo, I don't believe you have your facts correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bruno giordano
Click to expand...

He was not the first to suggest we weren't the center of the universe.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone else who has made this claim and I don't care if you believe me or not.  What do you do for a living?
> 
> 
> 
> I sell machines that measure important parts. Cmm's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like CNC systems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No coordinate measurement machines but close
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but they are used in CNC applications, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure
Click to expand...

So I was right about that then, right?  How would I know that CMM's were used in CNC applications?  Because I'm an engineer and I purchase equipment that is manufactured using CNC technology.  That's how.  What kind of CMM's do you sell?


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe that you are using critical thinking skills, then you don't know what critical thinking is.  What you are practicing is critical theory.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing everything you don't believe to justify what you do believe which of course is wrongheaded thinking.  Critical thinking is to critically challenge what you do believe to test its validity.  You are just another dumbass wanna be pretending to be intellectual.  You don't know shit.  You have never known shit and it is entirely likely that you will die never knowing shit..  You feel me.
Click to expand...

I realize you are emotional about your set-in-stone ancient "God" beliefs, but try to get a grip on your feelings before exercising whatever intellect you have.

*Critical thinking *reflects an *objective* evaluation of knowledge claims before adopting a belief.
You obviously have the cart before the horse. You adopted a Christian-Catholic belief system before logical evaluation; your biased view tries to make things "fit" into your belief system that you are emotionally invested in.

To be *objective*, you need to not *ass*ume something is true before you start your evaluation.
Does a "god" exist? We don't know, unless there is a valid logical argument to support its answer one way or another.
Are you able to elucidate a *logical argument *for the existence of a single "God"? 
If so, please begin by stating your premises that lead to your logical conclusion ...


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? If you're a practicing engineer, basing your measurements on stuff you hope is true based on what your parents told you upon birth, then I do not want to ride in your car...
> 
> 
> 
> That's good because I don't build cars.
> 
> happinessbeyondthought: How "consciousness" creates matter...the God particle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still serious? You know the "God particle" has nothing to do with "god", right? It was just an unfortunate term in a book?
> 
> The Higgs Boson and the Nobel: Why We Call It the 'God Particle'
> 
> It took off because religious people thought that there could actually be a particle that proved "god"!
> 
> But it has nothing to do with "god" or anything else supernatural!!! It has to do with the way a particle interacts with space-time to create mass!
> 
> It's good that you're not engineering cars, or any other moving thing (i hope). What exactly are you engineering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im noticing a lot of usmb Republicans claim to be engineers. I'm calling bullshit here and now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of anyone else who has made this claim and I don't care if you believe me or not.  What do you do for a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of usmb right wingers do. If I'm arguing science evolution or global warming they say they are a scientist. Turns out they are in IT. Lol or a janitor. Or they work for an engineer. When someone calls us for tech support I say let me connect you with an engineer
Click to expand...

I have not seen you in the environment forum discussing global warming.  You should come over there and let me explain to you the climate history of the earth and why radiative forcing of CO2 is not responsible for the myth of global warming.  Sure there is a greenhouse effect of CO2 but there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 level and associated temperature and the biggest impact is at very low concentrations.  The geologic record and the oxygen isotope curves prove that CO2 acts as a reinforcing agent to temperature change not as a driver for climate change.  We are in an interglacial cycle.  Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the four last interglacials.  We are well within the normal range of an interglacial cycle.  The problem with their models is not the radiative forcing aspect of CO2 it is with their ridiculous feedback amplifications which have been proven to be false by satellite measurements and their timing estimate of the associated temperature from radiative forcing of CO2.  The oceans have a vast storage of heat capacity.  It takes centuries for the radiative forcing of CO2 to have any effect on temperature.   What we are seeing today are natural variations that have always existed.  Finally, our CO2 emissions could go to zero overnight and the rest of the world would replace it in 5 years.  There isn't a problem and if it were, we are not the problem.


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
Click to expand...

As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This was the request:
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> I'll take your refusal to post the second paragraph a proof that you know that....as usual....I'm correct again.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no mention of Jesus
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no second paragraph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only one paragraph no matter how badly you want there to be a second
Click to expand...




Everyone who has a copy of the Constitution will recognize you in exactly the way I've described you....as a congenital liar.

Two paragraphs.....the second proving what I said it does.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe that you are using critical thinking skills, then you don't know what critical thinking is.  What you are practicing is critical theory.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing everything you don't believe to justify what you do believe which of course is wrongheaded thinking.  Critical thinking is to critically challenge what you do believe to test its validity.  You are just another dumbass wanna be pretending to be intellectual.  You don't know shit.  You have never known shit and it is entirely likely that you will die never knowing shit..  You feel me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize you are emotional about your set-in-stone ancient "God" beliefs, but try to get a grip on your feelings before exercising whatever intellect you have.
> 
> *Critical thinking *reflects an *objective* evaluation of knowledge claims before adopting a belief.
> You obviously have the cart before the horse. You adopted a Christian-Catholic belief system before logical evaluation; your biased view tries to make things "fit" into your belief system that you are emotionally invested in.
> 
> To be *objective*, you need to not *ass*ume something is true before you start your evaluation.
> Does a "god" exist? We don't know, unless there is a valid logical argument to support its answer one way or another.
> Are you able to elucidate a *logical argument *for the existence of a single "God"?
> If so, please begin by stating your premises that lead to your logical conclusion ...
Click to expand...

No.  I am not being emotional.  You are being illogical.  You are practicing is critical theory.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing everything you don't believe to justify what you do believe which of course is wrongheaded thinking.  Critical thinking is to critically challenge what you do believe to test its validity.  That is how I know that you are just another dumbass wanna be pretending to be intellectual.  You don't know shit.  You have never known shit and it is entirely likely that you will die never knowing shit.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
Click to expand...

And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.


----------



## BreezeWood

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This was the request:
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> I'll take your refusal to post the second paragraph a proof that you know that....as usual....I'm correct again.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no mention of Jesus
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no second paragraph
Click to expand...

.



PoliticalChic said:


> Still no second paragraph




U S CONSTITUTION - 
_
2nd P: done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names ...._


rather pathetic, the Almighty will certainly never entertain a christian ...


by the way PC why were they convening to ratify the U S Constitution - you are such an invalid I will refresh your memory, because the right wing articles of confederation was a miserable failure ... for the same reason



Articles of Confederation: 

_In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America._


the Almighty took special care for you on that one ...

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Notice how the founders never mention Christ in the Constitution"
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You really are a dunce.....one would have thought you'd read the Constitution before you stat what is or isn't in it.
> 
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh......and Merry Christmas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This was the request:
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> I'll take your refusal to post the second paragraph a proof that you know that....as usual....I'm correct again.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no mention of Jesus
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no second paragraph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no second paragraph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U S CONSTITUTION -
> _
> 2nd P: done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names ...._
> 
> 
> rather pathetic, the Almighty will certainly never entertain a christian ...
> 
> 
> by the way PC why were they convening to ratify the U S Constitution - you are such an invalid I will refresh your memory, because the right wing articles of confederation was a miserable failure ... for the same reason
> 
> 
> 
> Articles of Confederation:
> 
> _In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America._
> 
> 
> the Almighty took special care for you on that one ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Did you know that they still use that verbiage today when the president signs bills into laws?


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe that you are using critical thinking skills, then you don't know what critical thinking is.  What you are practicing is critical theory.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing everything you don't believe to justify what you do believe which of course is wrongheaded thinking.  Critical thinking is to critically challenge what you do believe to test its validity.  You are just another dumbass wanna be pretending to be intellectual.  You don't know shit.  You have never known shit and it is entirely likely that you will die never knowing shit..  You feel me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize you are emotional about your set-in-stone ancient "God" beliefs, but try to get a grip on your feelings before exercising whatever intellect you have.
> 
> *Critical thinking *reflects an *objective* evaluation of knowledge claims before adopting a belief.
> You obviously have the cart before the horse. You adopted a Christian-Catholic belief system before logical evaluation; your biased view tries to make things "fit" into your belief system that you are emotionally invested in.
> 
> To be *objective*, you need to not *ass*ume something is true before you start your evaluation.
> Does a "god" exist? We don't know, unless there is a valid logical argument to support its answer one way or another.
> Are you able to elucidate a *logical argument *for the existence of a single "God"?
> If so, please begin by stating your premises that lead to your logical conclusion ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I am not being emotional.  You are being illogical.  You are practicing is critical theory.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing everything you don't believe to justify what you do believe which of course is wrongheaded thinking.  Critical thinking is to critically challenge what you do believe to test its validity.  That is how I know that you are just another dumbass wanna be pretending to be intellectual.  You don't know shit.  You have never known shit and it is entirely likely that you will die never knowing shit.
Click to expand...

Again you confirm that *you have no logical argument for a "god"*.
Again, you lie when you say i have a belief about any "god".
Are you a cut/paste robot that has no ability to reason?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am more of a deist.  I believe the laws of nature or such that people like yourself will eventually suffer the predictable surprises of normalizing their deviance.
> 
> As an engineer I see the natural cycles that have occurred throughout man's history and the role that violating the moral law plays in it.  As an engineer I see how you use critical theory to criticize everything that you don't believe to justify what you do believe and convince yourself that you are using critical thinking.  You're not.  Critical thinking is challenging what you do believe to test its validity.  You don't have a positive argument for your beliefs.  You have negative arguments for what you don't believe such as your path not taken argument you are making now.
> 
> No, that doesn't mean He doesn't care.  It means that it is not virtuous if we are made to be virtuous.  Don't worry, the laws of compensation are such that virtue is increasing.  It just isn't in a straight line.  It is cyclical.  It is Darwinian.
> 
> The reality is that there is plenty of evidence for His existence.  You just don't accept any of it, but regardless, you are being pruned by Him through the natural laws of right and wrong, even if you don't recognize it or accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give us the 3-5 pieces of evidence you have for God's existence.
> 
> For example I could give you a list of 1000 pieces of scientific evidence that evolution is real. Give me your top 3-5. Short list
> 
> Nothing you present is going to prove there must be a creator. We've seen all the arguments.
> 
> And I'll even give you there could be a creator. That is one possibility. What evidence do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't deny evolution.  I don't see any inconsistencies at all.   I believe we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time that beings that know and create will eventually arise.  This means that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature the moment that space and time were created.  I have already explained to you the source of my evidence.  Creation itself and everything in it and everything that has happened since it was created is my evidence.  The universe is a self-referential system which behaves like a mind.  I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.   I believe that consciousness is evolving just like every phase in the evolution of matter evolved before it.  I believe that the purpose of the universe is consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.  The process that controls this evolution is called Natural Law.
> 
> Can you make a positive argument for why you believe there is no creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God may not be necessary for universes to exist. It seems like based on human minds we made this up. It was what we concluded a long time ago and we've believed it for so long without any evidence. And because we didn't have evidence moses manufactured evidence and the abrahamic religions were all born. No more multiple gods.
> 
> Maybe universes just occur and life occurs. It sucks but the truth is this is unknowable. But remember your God doesn't send me to hell for eternity just for not believing, does he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had the exact same evidence we have.  The only evidence anyone will ever have.  Human beings today are not much different than human beings 10,000 years ago.  The human condition has been known to us a very long time.  You are presuming that the writings in the Bible are literal.  You assume that when they spoke of God's vengeance they literally believed that God was personally responsible for smiting them.  The problem is they would know that when they violated the moral law nothing bad happened to them.  Often times they got away with it.  Just like we do today.  That doesn't mean there is no moral law.  It only means that the consequences of violating it are not immediate.  It also doesn't mean there are no consequences either.  We know from our own experiences that people who behave without virtue will naturally suffer predictable consequences.  It may seem like a surprise to them but we all know that if you cheat or steal or kill long enough, your actions will have consequences.  So while you read the Bible literally, I don't.  I understand that the Bible is a how to book.  It is not a book of fairy tales.  It is a book of profound wisdom.
> 
> I don't know what heaven and hell are.  My human mind cannot comprehend anything outside of space and time.  The best I can say is that our matter was created at the moment space and time were created and that when we die the energy that animates us will either return to the creator or it won't.  Heaven is being joined with the source of our energy.  Hell is being separated from the source of our energy.  Based on what I know, He does not destroy what He creates.
Click to expand...

For 2000 years they said the bible stories were real. Us atheists made them admit those are just stories. You're welcome

Like I've said before God doesn't offend me it's the religions that lied and said he visited.

Apparently we are smarter because most no longer take religions literally. Thank an atheist. Lol


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> 
> Where is the reference to Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was the request:
> Second paragraph of Article VII.
> Post it, please.
> And never make that mistake again.
> 
> I'll take your refusal to post the second paragraph a proof that you know that....as usual....I'm correct again.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no mention of Jesus
> 
> *Article VII*
> The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no second paragraph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no second paragraph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> U S CONSTITUTION -
> _
> 2nd P: done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names ...._
> 
> 
> rather pathetic, the Almighty will certainly never entertain a christian ...
> 
> 
> by the way PC why were they convening to ratify the U S Constitution - you are such an invalid I will refresh your memory, because the right wing articles of confederation was a miserable failure ... for the same reason
> 
> 
> 
> Articles of Confederation:
> 
> _In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America._
> 
> 
> the Almighty took special care for you on that one ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that they still use that verbiage today when the president signs bills into laws?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Did you know that they still use that verbiage today when the president signs bills into laws?




and do you have any other reason for why the Almighty has not reappeared for over 2000 K years ... christian.

.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
Click to expand...

You said you were ignostic.  Now you are saying you are agnostic.  Can you please make up your mind or at least keep your lies straight.  Your behaviors suggest that you are an atheist.  Possibly a militant atheist.


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
Click to expand...

Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.

Try to keep up!


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am more of a deist.  I believe the laws of nature or such that people like yourself will eventually suffer the predictable surprises of normalizing their deviance.
> 
> As an engineer I see the natural cycles that have occurred throughout man's history and the role that violating the moral law plays in it.  As an engineer I see how you use critical theory to criticize everything that you don't believe to justify what you do believe and convince yourself that you are using critical thinking.  You're not.  Critical thinking is challenging what you do believe to test its validity.  You don't have a positive argument for your beliefs.  You have negative arguments for what you don't believe such as your path not taken argument you are making now.
> 
> No, that doesn't mean He doesn't care.  It means that it is not virtuous if we are made to be virtuous.  Don't worry, the laws of compensation are such that virtue is increasing.  It just isn't in a straight line.  It is cyclical.  It is Darwinian.
> 
> The reality is that there is plenty of evidence for His existence.  You just don't accept any of it, but regardless, you are being pruned by Him through the natural laws of right and wrong, even if you don't recognize it or accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> Give us the 3-5 pieces of evidence you have for God's existence.
> 
> For example I could give you a list of 1000 pieces of scientific evidence that evolution is real. Give me your top 3-5. Short list
> 
> Nothing you present is going to prove there must be a creator. We've seen all the arguments.
> 
> And I'll even give you there could be a creator. That is one possibility. What evidence do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't deny evolution.  I don't see any inconsistencies at all.   I believe we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time that beings that know and create will eventually arise.  This means that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature the moment that space and time were created.  I have already explained to you the source of my evidence.  Creation itself and everything in it and everything that has happened since it was created is my evidence.  The universe is a self-referential system which behaves like a mind.  I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.   I believe that consciousness is evolving just like every phase in the evolution of matter evolved before it.  I believe that the purpose of the universe is consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.  The process that controls this evolution is called Natural Law.
> 
> Can you make a positive argument for why you believe there is no creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God may not be necessary for universes to exist. It seems like based on human minds we made this up. It was what we concluded a long time ago and we've believed it for so long without any evidence. And because we didn't have evidence moses manufactured evidence and the abrahamic religions were all born. No more multiple gods.
> 
> Maybe universes just occur and life occurs. It sucks but the truth is this is unknowable. But remember your God doesn't send me to hell for eternity just for not believing, does he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had the exact same evidence we have.  The only evidence anyone will ever have.  Human beings today are not much different than human beings 10,000 years ago.  The human condition has been known to us a very long time.  You are presuming that the writings in the Bible are literal.  You assume that when they spoke of God's vengeance they literally believed that God was personally responsible for smiting them.  The problem is they would know that when they violated the moral law nothing bad happened to them.  Often times they got away with it.  Just like we do today.  That doesn't mean there is no moral law.  It only means that the consequences of violating it are not immediate.  It also doesn't mean there are no consequences either.  We know from our own experiences that people who behave without virtue will naturally suffer predictable consequences.  It may seem like a surprise to them but we all know that if you cheat or steal or kill long enough, your actions will have consequences.  So while you read the Bible literally, I don't.  I understand that the Bible is a how to book.  It is not a book of fairy tales.  It is a book of profound wisdom.
> 
> I don't know what heaven and hell are.  My human mind cannot comprehend anything outside of space and time.  The best I can say is that our matter was created at the moment space and time were created and that when we die the energy that animates us will either return to the creator or it won't.  Heaven is being joined with the source of our energy.  Hell is being separated from the source of our energy.  Based on what I know, He does not destroy what He creates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For 2000 years they said the bible stories were real. Us atheists made them admit those are just stories. You're welcome
> 
> Like I've said before God doesn't offend me it's the religions that lied and said he visited.
> 
> Apparently we are smarter because most no longer take religions literally. Thank an atheist. Lol
Click to expand...

No.  That's not what they said.  That's what you believe they said.  The reality is that there are several different literary types used within the Bible; allegorical, poetic, historic and prophetic.   

So despite what you believe they said, your own common sense should be able to distinguish the difference between them.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
> I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
> I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.
> 
> Try to keep up!
Click to expand...

Too funny.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
> I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
> I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.
> 
> Try to keep up!
Click to expand...

You are also a liar, lol.

Is There A God?



PK1 said:


> I prefer honesty & am ignostic.


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
> I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
> I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.
> 
> Try to keep up!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are also a liar, lol.
> Is There A God?
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer honesty & am ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I did not lie. 
Why did you believe that?
Can you state your logical argument for  that false belief?


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Learned critical thinking skills..."
> Fact not in evidence.
> Clearly you are no more than a boiler plate bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
> I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
> I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.
> 
> Try to keep up!
Click to expand...

Let me now dissect your new found identity as an agnostic.  How many times have you argued with an atheist about their beliefs, lol?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am more of a deist.  I believe the laws of nature or such that people like yourself will eventually suffer the predictable surprises of normalizing their deviance.
> 
> As an engineer I see the natural cycles that have occurred throughout man's history and the role that violating the moral law plays in it.  As an engineer I see how you use critical theory to criticize everything that you don't believe to justify what you do believe and convince yourself that you are using critical thinking.  You're not.  Critical thinking is challenging what you do believe to test its validity.  You don't have a positive argument for your beliefs.  You have negative arguments for what you don't believe such as your path not taken argument you are making now.
> 
> No, that doesn't mean He doesn't care.  It means that it is not virtuous if we are made to be virtuous.  Don't worry, the laws of compensation are such that virtue is increasing.  It just isn't in a straight line.  It is cyclical.  It is Darwinian.
> 
> The reality is that there is plenty of evidence for His existence.  You just don't accept any of it, but regardless, you are being pruned by Him through the natural laws of right and wrong, even if you don't recognize it or accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give us the 3-5 pieces of evidence you have for God's existence.
> 
> For example I could give you a list of 1000 pieces of scientific evidence that evolution is real. Give me your top 3-5. Short list
> 
> Nothing you present is going to prove there must be a creator. We've seen all the arguments.
> 
> And I'll even give you there could be a creator. That is one possibility. What evidence do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't deny evolution.  I don't see any inconsistencies at all.   I believe we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time that beings that know and create will eventually arise.  This means that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature the moment that space and time were created.  I have already explained to you the source of my evidence.  Creation itself and everything in it and everything that has happened since it was created is my evidence.  The universe is a self-referential system which behaves like a mind.  I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.   I believe that consciousness is evolving just like every phase in the evolution of matter evolved before it.  I believe that the purpose of the universe is consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.  The process that controls this evolution is called Natural Law.
> 
> Can you make a positive argument for why you believe there is no creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God may not be necessary for universes to exist. It seems like based on human minds we made this up. It was what we concluded a long time ago and we've believed it for so long without any evidence. And because we didn't have evidence moses manufactured evidence and the abrahamic religions were all born. No more multiple gods.
> 
> Maybe universes just occur and life occurs. It sucks but the truth is this is unknowable. But remember your God doesn't send me to hell for eternity just for not believing, does he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had the exact same evidence we have.  The only evidence anyone will ever have.  Human beings today are not much different than human beings 10,000 years ago.  The human condition has been known to us a very long time.  You are presuming that the writings in the Bible are literal.  You assume that when they spoke of God's vengeance they literally believed that God was personally responsible for smiting them.  The problem is they would know that when they violated the moral law nothing bad happened to them.  Often times they got away with it.  Just like we do today.  That doesn't mean there is no moral law.  It only means that the consequences of violating it are not immediate.  It also doesn't mean there are no consequences either.  We know from our own experiences that people who behave without virtue will naturally suffer predictable consequences.  It may seem like a surprise to them but we all know that if you cheat or steal or kill long enough, your actions will have consequences.  So while you read the Bible literally, I don't.  I understand that the Bible is a how to book.  It is not a book of fairy tales.  It is a book of profound wisdom.
> 
> I don't know what heaven and hell are.  My human mind cannot comprehend anything outside of space and time.  The best I can say is that our matter was created at the moment space and time were created and that when we die the energy that animates us will either return to the creator or it won't.  Heaven is being joined with the source of our energy.  Hell is being separated from the source of our energy.  Based on what I know, He does not destroy what He creates.
Click to expand...

All I can say is theists like you are not the problem 

But don't forget the war science had with religion. Yes religions done a lot of good. Any business has to provide a product people want and religion has. I don't wish religions away because that's a big part of our economy. 

What has atheism got us? This is a secular society so true freedom to not have to worship.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am more of a deist.  I believe the laws of nature or such that people like yourself will eventually suffer the predictable surprises of normalizing their deviance.
> 
> As an engineer I see the natural cycles that have occurred throughout man's history and the role that violating the moral law plays in it.  As an engineer I see how you use critical theory to criticize everything that you don't believe to justify what you do believe and convince yourself that you are using critical thinking.  You're not.  Critical thinking is challenging what you do believe to test its validity.  You don't have a positive argument for your beliefs.  You have negative arguments for what you don't believe such as your path not taken argument you are making now.
> 
> No, that doesn't mean He doesn't care.  It means that it is not virtuous if we are made to be virtuous.  Don't worry, the laws of compensation are such that virtue is increasing.  It just isn't in a straight line.  It is cyclical.  It is Darwinian.
> 
> The reality is that there is plenty of evidence for His existence.  You just don't accept any of it, but regardless, you are being pruned by Him through the natural laws of right and wrong, even if you don't recognize it or accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> Give us the 3-5 pieces of evidence you have for God's existence.
> 
> For example I could give you a list of 1000 pieces of scientific evidence that evolution is real. Give me your top 3-5. Short list
> 
> Nothing you present is going to prove there must be a creator. We've seen all the arguments.
> 
> And I'll even give you there could be a creator. That is one possibility. What evidence do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't deny evolution.  I don't see any inconsistencies at all.   I believe we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time that beings that know and create will eventually arise.  This means that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature the moment that space and time were created.  I have already explained to you the source of my evidence.  Creation itself and everything in it and everything that has happened since it was created is my evidence.  The universe is a self-referential system which behaves like a mind.  I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.   I believe that consciousness is evolving just like every phase in the evolution of matter evolved before it.  I believe that the purpose of the universe is consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.  The process that controls this evolution is called Natural Law.
> 
> Can you make a positive argument for why you believe there is no creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God may not be necessary for universes to exist. It seems like based on human minds we made this up. It was what we concluded a long time ago and we've believed it for so long without any evidence. And because we didn't have evidence moses manufactured evidence and the abrahamic religions were all born. No more multiple gods.
> 
> Maybe universes just occur and life occurs. It sucks but the truth is this is unknowable. But remember your God doesn't send me to hell for eternity just for not believing, does he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had the exact same evidence we have.  The only evidence anyone will ever have.  Human beings today are not much different than human beings 10,000 years ago.  The human condition has been known to us a very long time.  You are presuming that the writings in the Bible are literal.  You assume that when they spoke of God's vengeance they literally believed that God was personally responsible for smiting them.  The problem is they would know that when they violated the moral law nothing bad happened to them.  Often times they got away with it.  Just like we do today.  That doesn't mean there is no moral law.  It only means that the consequences of violating it are not immediate.  It also doesn't mean there are no consequences either.  We know from our own experiences that people who behave without virtue will naturally suffer predictable consequences.  It may seem like a surprise to them but we all know that if you cheat or steal or kill long enough, your actions will have consequences.  So while you read the Bible literally, I don't.  I understand that the Bible is a how to book.  It is not a book of fairy tales.  It is a book of profound wisdom.
> 
> I don't know what heaven and hell are.  My human mind cannot comprehend anything outside of space and time.  The best I can say is that our matter was created at the moment space and time were created and that when we die the energy that animates us will either return to the creator or it won't.  Heaven is being joined with the source of our energy.  Hell is being separated from the source of our energy.  Based on what I know, He does not destroy what He creates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I can say is theists like you are not the problem
> 
> But don't forget the war science had with religion. Yes religions done a lot of good. Any business has to provide a product people want and religion has. I don't wish religions away because that's a big part of our economy.
> 
> What has atheism got us? This is a secular society so true freedom to not have to worship.
Click to expand...

Thank you.  Just so you know, history proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that militant atheism leads to communism.  So your exact same concern about religion should also exist with atheism.  Radical behavior leads to problems.  You might want to think about your response the next time you see a militant atheist being militant.


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
> I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
> I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.
> 
> Try to keep up!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are also a liar, lol.
> Is There A God?
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer honesty & am ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not lie.
> Why did you believe that?
> Can you state your logical argument for  that false belief?
Click to expand...

Good Lord, it was your own words which convicted you.


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see your evidence, or are you a brainless robot like you appear?
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
> I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
> I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.
> 
> Try to keep up!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me now dissect your new found identity as an agnostic.  How many times have you argued with an atheist about their beliefs, lol?
Click to expand...

Many times, but it depends on the claim.
This is getting tiring; you either don't read or you are unable to understand what I said before.
You think in black/white with a disposition for pressing the "easy button".

The basic definition of "atheist" is *no believe* in theism (*a*-theist). I agree with that "weak atheist" position with regard to current claims.
I do not agree with "strong atheists" who claim there is no god or gods.
It's really not that difficult to understand, if you actually think about it with an open mind.

I gotta go and attend to much more important tasks ...


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck do you believe and what is your evidence for that belief?  Is your evidence that I am wrong?  That's not evidence, dumbass.  Please tell me that you can make a positive case for your beliefs.  Please tell me that you are not some dumbass critical theorists who has no basis for his beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
> I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
> I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.
> 
> Try to keep up!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me now dissect your new found identity as an agnostic.  How many times have you argued with an atheist about their beliefs, lol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many times, but it depends on the claim.
> This is getting tiring; you either don't read or you are unable to understand what I said before.
> You think in black/white with a disposition for pressing the "easy button".
> 
> The basic definition of "atheist" is *no believe* in theism (*a*-theist). I agree with that "weak atheist" position with regard to current claims.
> I do not agree with "strong atheists" who claim there is no god or gods.
> It's really not that difficult to understand, if you actually think about it with an open mind.
> 
> I gotta go and attend to much more important tasks ...
Click to expand...

Like I already told you... your own words convict you. 

Is There A God?

If you have argued with an atheist many times, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to post a link to one of those many conversations in this forum, right?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do blacks today, even the successful ones, think the GOP is racist?
> 
> Republicans now have a chance to win blacks over. Remember "what have you got to lose"? This goes for the poorly educated blue collar whites. Time for Republicans to show us what they got.
> 
> Please don't fuck us like bush Tom delay and Dennis hastert did
> 
> 
> 
> Who says they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ever watch blackish? But you make a good point. Us libs can't have it both ways. We say southern Democrats were racist but now southern Republicans are. So it's possible for parties to change. You claim the GOP is not racist and it's the best party for working class people. Moving forward let's see.
> 
> I will forgive all past sins. Let's forget the past. I have an open mind. God if you're out there give me a sign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more Republican the south became the less racist it became.  All of the bad things that happened in the south happened when Democrats were in charge of the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I think the KKK in the 80s, 90's, 2000 and 2010s vote GOP, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe they did.  Why would they?  Republicans want to get blacks off of the economic plantation.  Republicans want to end the black genocide of abortion.  Democrats want to pay for your abortions.  They even have it written in their party platform for crying out loud.  Why else do they put planned parenthood abortion mills close to black population centers?  I believe the KKK are the biggest supporters and donors of planned parenthood.  You do realize that black babies are three times more likely to be aborted than white babies, right?
Click to expand...

Under those ghetto conditions yes I understand why.

You fix their economic opportunities and they have no reason to abort. As of now the ghettos already have too many baby daddies and not enough fathers.


----------



## PK1

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As i stated *MANY* times before, i have *no belief* in any conceptualization of a "god"; i am *agnostic* and *honest* about my ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
> I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
> I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.
> 
> Try to keep up!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are also a liar, lol.
> Is There A God?
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer honesty & am ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not lie.
> Why did you believe that?
> Can you state your logical argument for  that false belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Lord, it was your own words which convicted you.
Click to expand...

So you have no logical argument, again.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sell machines that measure important parts. Cmm's
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like CNC systems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No coordinate measurement machines but close
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but they are used in CNC applications, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I was right about that then, right?  How would I know that CMM's were used in CNC applications?  Because I'm an engineer and I purchase equipment that is manufactured using CNC technology.  That's how.  What kind of CMM's do you sell?
Click to expand...

Because you are a buyer. You don't sound like an engineer.

I'm not telling you who I work for


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who says they do?
> 
> 
> 
> You ever watch blackish? But you make a good point. Us libs can't have it both ways. We say southern Democrats were racist but now southern Republicans are. So it's possible for parties to change. You claim the GOP is not racist and it's the best party for working class people. Moving forward let's see.
> 
> I will forgive all past sins. Let's forget the past. I have an open mind. God if you're out there give me a sign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more Republican the south became the less racist it became.  All of the bad things that happened in the south happened when Democrats were in charge of the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I think the KKK in the 80s, 90's, 2000 and 2010s vote GOP, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe they did.  Why would they?  Republicans want to get blacks off of the economic plantation.  Republicans want to end the black genocide of abortion.  Democrats want to pay for your abortions.  They even have it written in their party platform for crying out loud.  Why else do they put planned parenthood abortion mills close to black population centers?  I believe the KKK are the biggest supporters and donors of planned parenthood.  You do realize that black babies are three times more likely to be aborted than white babies, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under those ghetto conditions yes I understand why.
> 
> You fix their economic opportunities and they have no reason to abort. As of now the ghettos already have too many baby daddies and not enough fathers.
Click to expand...

Did you know that back in the 1930's the percentage of black families which had two parents in their household exceeded that of white families?  Do you know what destroyed their nuclear family?


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I have stated many times before and proven through logic, you are full of shit.  It is irrational for you to believe that you are ignostic and be arguing against the existence of God. Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. So here you are engaging in an argument that you have already defined as meaningless. Which means that it isn't so meaningless to you and it is irrational to define yourself as ignostic.
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on to your emotions! LOL.
> I am *ignostic* about your idea of a "God".
> I am agnostic about a logical argument for a "god" if rationally defined.
> 
> Try to keep up!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are also a liar, lol.
> Is There A God?
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer honesty & am ignostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not lie.
> Why did you believe that?
> Can you state your logical argument for  that false belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Lord, it was your own words which convicted you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have no logical argument, again.
Click to expand...

Of course I do.  I already showed it to you.  You said so in your own words that you were ignostic.  You placed no caveat on it.  It was an unconditional statement.  You didn't say you were ignostic about my beliefs.  That was you stating your beliefs.  I thought you said you had to go to attend to more important things.  Was that a lie too?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like CNC systems?
> 
> 
> 
> No coordinate measurement machines but close
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but they are used in CNC applications, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I was right about that then, right?  How would I know that CMM's were used in CNC applications?  Because I'm an engineer and I purchase equipment that is manufactured using CNC technology.  That's how.  What kind of CMM's do you sell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you are a buyer. You don't sound like an engineer.
> 
> I'm not telling you who I work for
Click to expand...

I didn't ask who you work for.  I asked what kind of CMM's you sold.  Are you telling me that you can't tell what your CMM's are measuring without telling me who you work for? 

I spec out and purchase equipment all the time.  Our purchasing department won't purchase shit unless I tell them what to buy.  I write SoR''s and get price quotes.  You do realize that engineering is the COMMERCIAL application of science, right?

So when you say you sell CMM's what exactly does that mean?  Do you call on customers?  Do you prepare price quotes?  Do you work with them on SoR's?  What exactly do you do?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like CNC systems?
> 
> 
> 
> No coordinate measurement machines but close
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but they are used in CNC applications, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I was right about that then, right?  How would I know that CMM's were used in CNC applications?  Because I'm an engineer and I purchase equipment that is manufactured using CNC technology.  That's how.  What kind of CMM's do you sell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you are a buyer. You don't sound like an engineer.
> 
> I'm not telling you who I work for
Click to expand...

Do you know a lot of buyers who understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or radiative forcing of CO2?


----------



## ding

Are we done here?


----------



## BreezeWood

.
at 2808, I doubt it. and that is in no way an endorsement for Damaged --- chuckles --- Eagle ...

.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ever watch blackish? But you make a good point. Us libs can't have it both ways. We say southern Democrats were racist but now southern Republicans are. So it's possible for parties to change. You claim the GOP is not racist and it's the best party for working class people. Moving forward let's see.
> 
> I will forgive all past sins. Let's forget the past. I have an open mind. God if you're out there give me a sign
> 
> 
> 
> The more Republican the south became the less racist it became.  All of the bad things that happened in the south happened when Democrats were in charge of the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I think the KKK in the 80s, 90's, 2000 and 2010s vote GOP, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe they did.  Why would they?  Republicans want to get blacks off of the economic plantation.  Republicans want to end the black genocide of abortion.  Democrats want to pay for your abortions.  They even have it written in their party platform for crying out loud.  Why else do they put planned parenthood abortion mills close to black population centers?  I believe the KKK are the biggest supporters and donors of planned parenthood.  You do realize that black babies are three times more likely to be aborted than white babies, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under those ghetto conditions yes I understand why.
> 
> You fix their economic opportunities and they have no reason to abort. As of now the ghettos already have too many baby daddies and not enough fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you know that back in the 1930's the percentage of black families which had two parents in their household exceeded that of white families?  Do you know what destroyed their nuclear family?
Click to expand...

Welfare? I also heard how for years white women got welfare but equally poor black women didn't. Republicans never had a problem with welfare until blacks started giving it.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you "they" have grown too dependent on welfare


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No coordinate measurement machines but close
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but they are used in CNC applications, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I was right about that then, right?  How would I know that CMM's were used in CNC applications?  Because I'm an engineer and I purchase equipment that is manufactured using CNC technology.  That's how.  What kind of CMM's do you sell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you are a buyer. You don't sound like an engineer.
> 
> I'm not telling you who I work for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ask who you work for.  I asked what kind of CMM's you sold.  Are you telling me that you can't tell what your CMM's are measuring without telling me who you work for?
> 
> I spec out and purchase equipment all the time.  Our purchasing department won't purchase shit unless I tell them what to buy.  I write SoR''s and get price quotes.  You do realize that engineering is the COMMERCIAL application of science, right?
> 
> So when you say you sell CMM's what exactly does that mean?  Do you call on customers?  Do you prepare price quotes?  Do you work with them on SoR's?  What exactly do you do?
Click to expand...

I do all that. I'm the only salesperson at my company who goes after new business. The other salespeople sell to anyone who calls in or they sell new cmm's to existing customers. 

And we measure anything that has to be right within mm or microns. Turbines, pharmaceutical, manufacturing. We don't sell cnc"'s we sell cmm's. One of our competitors is Zeiss.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Are we done here?


Sorry I have a life to live. Lol I know a couple or a few really smart guys


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but they are used in CNC applications, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I was right about that then, right?  How would I know that CMM's were used in CNC applications?  Because I'm an engineer and I purchase equipment that is manufactured using CNC technology.  That's how.  What kind of CMM's do you sell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you are a buyer. You don't sound like an engineer.
> 
> I'm not telling you who I work for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ask who you work for.  I asked what kind of CMM's you sold.  Are you telling me that you can't tell what your CMM's are measuring without telling me who you work for?
> 
> I spec out and purchase equipment all the time.  Our purchasing department won't purchase shit unless I tell them what to buy.  I write SoR''s and get price quotes.  You do realize that engineering is the COMMERCIAL application of science, right?
> 
> So when you say you sell CMM's what exactly does that mean?  Do you call on customers?  Do you prepare price quotes?  Do you work with them on SoR's?  What exactly do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do all that. I'm the only salesperson at my company who goes after new business. The other salespeople sell to anyone who calls in or they sell new cmm's to existing customers.
> 
> And we measure anything that has to be right within mm or microns. Turbines, pharmaceutical, manufacturing. We don't sell cnc"'s we sell cmm's. One of our competitors is Zeiss.
Click to expand...

So your equipment is not installed in CNC applications at all?  Just used for QA/QC?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we done here?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I have a life to live. Lol I know a couple or a few really smart guys
Click to expand...

That wasn't directed at you.


----------



## RWS

sealybobo said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im trying to think religiously. They would say we have free will or that everything happens for a reason or that we can't have all the answers or its gods will.
> 
> Fact is your questions debunk the God that supposedly visits cares and occasionally interveens. Unless you believe one of the thousands of religions and in that case pick any one of them they have all the answers.
Click to expand...


That's my argument. What religions give us as "God", are simply ways to control us, and get powerful and rich. This omnipotent and benevolent being cannot exist based on the facts of history. 

So maybe God is now a more watered down version, and has lost some of His abilities, and no longer has the power to intervene. This would be my hopeful version for religious zealots... 

Otherwise, He's evil and watching, and munching on popcorn, to see what the heck we do next, and what other dramas we create, while He roots for the people that believe in Him to kill all the others...

Or He's completely unaware of our situation. He created us and has since then moved on to better things... 

Or, He's playing a video game in such an advanced state of AI, that it can simulate all of us, along with the rest of universe. He's not good or bad in that scenario, it's just a simulation that He's playing, and we're part of it. 

Or, of course, He very possibly doesn't 

In any of these options, there are no reasons to love this "god" and believe that it is looking out for your welfare. There is no reason to believe false rulers who claim to talk to this "god", and hand down rules and restrictions and tax their followers. They grow rich and powerful based on the ignorance and naive nature of their followers. And there is especially no reason to kill another person based on the command of one of these false rulers! 

But that's what religion has done for over 4000 years after the original Sumerian tales of Creation. They changed the stories to suit their objectives, and gain power and wealth. They used "believers" to kill their enemies and gain more power and wealth. Because only a person that believes that they are doing something that "God" commanded them to, would go and kill others knowing that it meant their own death. Esp in times before guns and long-range weapons. They kill and die for the glory they expect in the "afterlife" that their ruler told them would happen. 

But that's obviously not true. 


So again, I ask people who believe in these things...  *Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?
*
Isn't it good enough just to have something inside that makes you feel good? Faith in goodness? Faith in that doing good to others is better than doing bad to others? So why are "God" and the associated religions necessary? 

Because, they're killin us...


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
Click to expand...


Let's talk about the "flaws"... 

1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both. 

2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively. 

I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history. 

Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused. 

Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God. 

That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?


----------



## RWS

PK1 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe that you are using critical thinking skills, then you don't know what critical thinking is.  What you are practicing is critical theory.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing everything you don't believe to justify what you do believe which of course is wrongheaded thinking.  Critical thinking is to critically challenge what you do believe to test its validity.  You are just another dumbass wanna be pretending to be intellectual.  You don't know shit.  You have never known shit and it is entirely likely that you will die never knowing shit..  You feel me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize you are emotional about your set-in-stone ancient "God" beliefs, but try to get a grip on your feelings before exercising whatever intellect you have.
> 
> *Critical thinking *reflects an *objective* evaluation of knowledge claims before adopting a belief.
> You obviously have the cart before the horse. You adopted a Christian-Catholic belief system before logical evaluation; your biased view tries to make things "fit" into your belief system that you are emotionally invested in.
> 
> To be *objective*, you need to not *ass*ume something is true before you start your evaluation.
> Does a "god" exist? We don't know, unless there is a valid logical argument to support its answer one way or another.
> Are you able to elucidate a *logical argument *for the existence of a single "God"?
> If so, please begin by stating your premises that lead to your logical conclusion ...
Click to expand...


I just said this same thing on my reply, after yours. You're exactly right!


----------



## RWS

There's actually another option about "God" that could possibly be true. And it actually makes a lot of sense if true.

God is not a supernatural being, but an extra-terrestrial one. They came here, created us in their image using their DNA with the high ape at the time to use as a slave race, did what they needed, taught us what was necessary, and then left...

And we're here scratching our heads over it, and making stuff up afterwards.

This is what the Sumerians said 6000 years ago. And their texts are what most every other major religion is based on. So that is another option to add to the list of what "God" is or isn't...


----------



## RWS

In that theory, you get your Creation and beings with "super powers", you get your science, and it makes sense why the stories branched out into so many different and confusing paths afterwards, and why we fight about it. You just have to allow the possibility of an ET visiting the Earth in ancient times, like the Anunnaki ("those who from heaven to earth came"). If you can allow that possibility, then it is a very compelling argument indeed. 

But regardless, it is not necessary in this discussion, except maybe in a historical context of what "God" originally was to the first people to learn how to write, who were also the first civilization known to man. And the plagiarism that took place afterwards that gave us our current God(s).... Maybe it is necessary in that understanding...


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure
> 
> 
> 
> So I was right about that then, right?  How would I know that CMM's were used in CNC applications?  Because I'm an engineer and I purchase equipment that is manufactured using CNC technology.  That's how.  What kind of CMM's do you sell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you are a buyer. You don't sound like an engineer.
> 
> I'm not telling you who I work for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ask who you work for.  I asked what kind of CMM's you sold.  Are you telling me that you can't tell what your CMM's are measuring without telling me who you work for?
> 
> I spec out and purchase equipment all the time.  Our purchasing department won't purchase shit unless I tell them what to buy.  I write SoR''s and get price quotes.  You do realize that engineering is the COMMERCIAL application of science, right?
> 
> So when you say you sell CMM's what exactly does that mean?  Do you call on customers?  Do you prepare price quotes?  Do you work with them on SoR's?  What exactly do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do all that. I'm the only salesperson at my company who goes after new business. The other salespeople sell to anyone who calls in or they sell new cmm's to existing customers.
> 
> And we measure anything that has to be right within mm or microns. Turbines, pharmaceutical, manufacturing. We don't sell cnc"'s we sell cmm's. One of our competitors is Zeiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your equipment is not installed in CNC applications at all?  Just used for QA/QC?
Click to expand...

Yes. A cmm is a machine itself. Could be huge could be the size of a copier. Boeing has to measure turbine blades to make sure their planes are built right


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im trying to think religiously. They would say we have free will or that everything happens for a reason or that we can't have all the answers or its gods will.
> 
> Fact is your questions debunk the God that supposedly visits cares and occasionally interveens. Unless you believe one of the thousands of religions and in that case pick any one of them they have all the answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my argument. What religions give us as "God", are simply ways to control us, and get powerful and rich. This omnipotent and benevolent being cannot exist based on the facts of history.
> 
> So maybe God is now a more watered down version, and has lost some of His abilities, and no longer has the power to intervene. This would be my hopeful version for religious zealots...
> 
> Otherwise, He's evil and watching, and munching on popcorn, to see what the heck we do next, and what other dramas we create, while He roots for the people that believe in Him to kill all the others...
> 
> Or He's completely unaware of our situation. He created us and has since then moved on to better things...
> 
> Or, He's playing a video game in such an advanced state of AI, that it can simulate all of us, along with the rest of universe. He's not good or bad in that scenario, it's just a simulation that He's playing, and we're part of it.
> 
> Or, of course, He very possibly doesn't
> 
> In any of these options, there are no reasons to love this "god" and believe that it is looking out for your welfare. There is no reason to believe false rulers who claim to talk to this "god", and hand down rules and restrictions and tax their followers. They grow rich and powerful based on the ignorance and naive nature of their followers. And there is especially no reason to kill another person based on the command of one of these false rulers!
> 
> But that's what religion has done for over 4000 years after the original Sumerian tales of Creation. They changed the stories to suit their objectives, and gain power and wealth. They used "believers" to kill their enemies and gain more power and wealth. Because only a person that believes that they are doing something that "God" commanded them to, would go and kill others knowing that it meant their own death. Esp in times before guns and long-range weapons. They kill and die for the glory they expect in the "afterlife" that their ruler told them would happen.
> 
> But that's obviously not true.
> 
> 
> So again, I ask people who believe in these things...  *Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?
> *
> Isn't it good enough just to have something inside that makes you feel good? Faith in goodness? Faith in that doing good to others is better than doing bad to others? So why are "God" and the associated religions necessary?
> 
> Because, they're killin us...
Click to expand...

Before I finish I had a thought.

Does a bison know about the maggot it created when it took a shit?

Or, if you create a computer are you aware of every little thing happening inside the computer? You don't want the computer to break down so you fix it. God won't fix our sun when it decides to burn out.

Sorry, I'll keep reading your post now


----------



## hobelim

RWS said:


> In that theory, you get your Creation and beings with "super powers", you get your science, and it makes sense why the stories branched out into so many different and confusing paths afterwards, and why we fight about it. You just have to allow the possibility of an ET visiting the Earth in ancient times, like the Anunnaki ("those who from heaven to earth came"). If you can allow that possibility, then it is a very compelling argument indeed.
> 
> But regardless, it is not necessary in this discussion, except maybe in a historical context of what "God" originally was to the first people to learn how to write, who were also the first civilization known to man. And the plagiarism that took place afterwards that gave us our current God(s).... Maybe it is necessary in that understanding...





Watch out. You said ET.

When I suggested that possibility, a rational one, for some mysterious reason it made someone else freak out as if they felt threatened and they began hysterically demanding proof. lol.....


Another possibility is that there was an advanced civilization on the other side of this planet that achieved flight, came down from the sky, established a colony among superstitious neolithic hunter gatherers in the middle east,  took great pains to try and civilize them with little success, and eventually said screw this place and left..

Then of course, maybe it is just like reported in scripture. Some sort of inter-dimensional contact via the mind with perfected beings from a higher realm of intelligent life who took great pains to try and civilize people of this world,  with little success, and eventually said screw this place and left..


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
Click to expand...

Yes! We too have been programmed to assume God is a given. It wasn't till I wiped the slate clean and challenged everything that can't be proven and put aside wishful thinking and concluded there's probably no God. At least not one who's ever visited or cares.

And they finally admit those bible stories are just allegories. So we are back to square one. Generic God. Don't worry about him. Hes never visited, doesn't care and has no hell waiting.

No one starts wars over generic God. And no one ever starts a war for atheism. What they admit by saying religion does more good than atheism is that deep down they know it's not true but it does us good.

This is what they're saying. They think a lie is good for us. I say a lie, any lie, no matter how good it makes you feel, is holding you back.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> In that theory, you get your Creation and beings with "super powers", you get your science, and it makes sense why the stories branched out into so many different and confusing paths afterwards, and why we fight about it. You just have to allow the possibility of an ET visiting the Earth in ancient times, like the Anunnaki ("those who from heaven to earth came"). If you can allow that possibility, then it is a very compelling argument indeed.
> 
> But regardless, it is not necessary in this discussion, except maybe in a historical context of what "God" originally was to the first people to learn how to write, who were also the first civilization known to man. And the plagiarism that took place afterwards that gave us our current God(s).... Maybe it is necessary in that understanding...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out. You said ET.
> 
> When I suggested that possibility, a rational one, for some mysterious reason it made someone else freak out as if they felt threatened and they began hysterically demanding proof. lol.....
> 
> 
> Another possibility is that there was an advanced civilization on the other side of this planet that achieved flight, came down from the sky, established a colony among superstitious neolithic hunter gatherers in the middle east,  took great pains to try and civilize them with little success, and eventually said screw this place and left..
> 
> Then of course, maybe it is just like reported in scripture. Some sort of inter-dimensional contact via the mind with perfected beings from a higher realm of intelligent life who took great pains to try and civilize people of this world,  with little success, and eventually said screw this place and left..
Click to expand...


Or god got sick of all the sin, told one guy to gather up his 3 sons and their 3 wives and they gathered up 2 of every animal and put them on an arc and replenished the earth again with a bunch of sinning incestuous assholes (us).

So why did god bother with the arc if he knew Noah's kids ancestors that would repopulate the earth would turn out to be just as corrupt and immoral as before?  So how many times have we let god down and he had to hit the reset button.  Adam and eve, let him down.  The people of noah's day, let God down.  The people who crucified Jesus let god down.  The people of saddam and gamora, let him down.  And ask any religious person if we are living in the days of Soddomy and Gammora and they'll say we are.  And ask the Mormons if Christianity has lost it's authority and it will say it did during the dark ages.  

It's just all too silly to take serious but far too many adults take this shit literally.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we done here?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I have a life to live. Lol I know a couple or a few really smart guys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't directed at you.
Click to expand...


Now I see how you can believe in god and be a scientist.  You believe in Generic god. Not one that ever visited and created the earth in 7 days.  You admit these are all just stories.  You are NOT a christian and you don't believe Jesus was anything other than maybe a great man.  If he isn't completely made up.  Also another possibility.  

And if you deny micro evolution then you too are a cherry picking scientist.  Because to deny evolution is to believe that this creator came here and POOFED fully grown land animals onto this planet at some point.  Fully grown zebra who then had baby zebra.  If you deny that all land creatures crawled out of the water at some point then you are subscribing to the "god poofed living animals here" theory of creation and how does your scientific mind accept this theory that a god came here and waved his hand and land animals just started to exist.  No way you believe that, do you?

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

_“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _– Ken Ham

Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham is an Australian-born Christian fundamentalist and young Earth creationist living in the United States.

Ken disagrees with you.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we done here?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I have a life to live. Lol I know a couple or a few really smart guys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't directed at you.
Click to expand...

You do realize lots of Christians take the bible literally, right?

The evidence of the Biblical record better supports the post-Flood beginning of carnivory for several reasons:

    (1) at Creation, God specifically established a vegetarian diet for both man and animals,

    (2) after the Fall, it is reiterated to Adam that they will continue to eat of the green plants of the field,

    (3) if, in the pre-Flood, post-Fall environment, no need developed for mankind to become carnivorous, there is no reason for animals to have been so either,

    (4) it is only after the Flood that God specifically tells Noah that ‘in the same way’ that he was previously given vegetation for food, he is now given the animals and fish as food,

    (5) after the Flood, the relationship between men and animals becomes adversarial (God placed the ‘fear and dread’ of mankind upon the animals) and this was, therefore, clearly not the case before the Flood.

In addition, the post-Flood advent of carnivory makes the account of Noah’s Ark more feasible: no vicious carnivores, who required meat to sustain them for the duration of the Flood, were taken on the Ark, simply because they were still herbivores who were harmonious in their relationship to man. The lifespan and dietary changes were initiated by God (and certainly may have included genetic changes) after the Flood for many reasons, one of which was to sustain life in the radically changed post-Flood environment.

Other creation scientists feel that the animals ate each other after the fall but before the flood, but were temporarily herbivores during and immediately after the flood.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


RWS said:


> In any of these options, there are no reasons to love this "god" and believe that it is looking out for your welfare.





RWS said:


> *Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*




the written bibles are theatrical melodramas for (ding)bats - excuses for self righteousness and mental delusions as misogyny to gain notoriety ...


beyond that there is reality, what actually exists and the ability to put together a combination to become a functioning asset beyond our mortal existence to participate as Spirits in the shaping of the laws of the Everlasting or simply just enjoying them. if there is one Spiritual existence there are others and if others there certainly will be an Almighty and as we are formed from purity, purity by all measures is what most should be protected -

what an Almighty represents is the goal, Triumph of Good vs Evil as an accomplished purity from mortal to a free Spirit in the Everlasting as the simplest requirement and that there be something the Almighty even if a committee of similar Spirits that distinguishes an Adolf Hitler to keep them away from an impact on the basic purity of Life.

the forces of good and evil are physical.

.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we done here?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I have a life to live. Lol I know a couple or a few really smart guys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I see how you can believe in god and be a scientist.  You believe in Generic god. Not one that ever visited and created the earth in 7 days.  You admit these are all just stories.  You are NOT a christian and you don't believe Jesus was anything other than maybe a great man.  If he isn't completely made up.  Also another possibility.
> 
> And if you deny micro evolution then you too are a cherry picking scientist.  Because to deny evolution is to believe that this creator came here and POOFED fully grown land animals onto this planet at some point.  Fully grown zebra who then had baby zebra.  If you deny that all land creatures crawled out of the water at some point then you are subscribing to the "god poofed living animals here" theory of creation and how does your scientific mind accept this theory that a god came here and waved his hand and land animals just started to exist.  No way you believe that, do you?
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:
> 
> _“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _– Ken Ham
> 
> Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham is an Australian-born Christian fundamentalist and young Earth creationist living in the United States.
> 
> Ken disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

I disagree with me too based upon your assumptions of me.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we done here?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I have a life to live. Lol I know a couple or a few really smart guys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't directed at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I see how you can believe in god and be a scientist.  You believe in Generic god. Not one that ever visited and created the earth in 7 days.  You admit these are all just stories.  You are NOT a christian and you don't believe Jesus was anything other than maybe a great man.  If he isn't completely made up.  Also another possibility.
> 
> And if you deny micro evolution then you too are a cherry picking scientist.  Because to deny evolution is to believe that this creator came here and POOFED fully grown land animals onto this planet at some point.  Fully grown zebra who then had baby zebra.  If you deny that all land creatures crawled out of the water at some point then you are subscribing to the "god poofed living animals here" theory of creation and how does your scientific mind accept this theory that a god came here and waved his hand and land animals just started to exist.  No way you believe that, do you?
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:
> 
> _“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _– Ken Ham
> 
> Kenneth Alfred "Ken" Ham is an Australian-born Christian fundamentalist and young Earth creationist living in the United States.
> 
> Ken disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree with me too based upon your assumptions of me.
Click to expand...

But I think I have you pegged.  You call yourself a Deist but you "like" the message you get out of Christianity so you consider yourself a Christian too.  Am I wrong?


----------



## sealybobo

Deist:  The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. *Deism* thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.


----------



## the_human_being

Trump's election is proof that God exists.


----------



## BreezeWood

the_human_being said:


> Trump's election is proof that God exists.


.


the_human_being said:


> Trump's election is proof that God exists.




your christian gods .... not the Almighty.

.


----------



## the_human_being

BreezeWood said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your christian gods .... not the Almighty.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


God's a registered Republican.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your christian gods .... not the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's a registered Republican.
Click to expand...

God doesn't exist.  Maybe that's why Hillary actually won the popular vote.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your christian gods .... not the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's a registered Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't exist.  Maybe that's why Hillary actually won the popular vote.
Click to expand...


You can take your popular vote and a dollar bill and get a cup of coffee at McDonalds.


----------



## rightwinger

the_human_being said:


> Trump's election is proof that God exists.


Trumps election is proof that God is a comedian


----------



## BreezeWood

the_human_being said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your christian gods .... not the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's a registered Republican.
Click to expand...

.


the_human_being said:


> God's a registered Republican.




bing, your brother believes Jesus had himself crucified to defend capitalism ....

.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I was right about that then, right?  How would I know that CMM's were used in CNC applications?  Because I'm an engineer and I purchase equipment that is manufactured using CNC technology.  That's how.  What kind of CMM's do you sell?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are a buyer. You don't sound like an engineer.
> 
> I'm not telling you who I work for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't ask who you work for.  I asked what kind of CMM's you sold.  Are you telling me that you can't tell what your CMM's are measuring without telling me who you work for?
> 
> I spec out and purchase equipment all the time.  Our purchasing department won't purchase shit unless I tell them what to buy.  I write SoR''s and get price quotes.  You do realize that engineering is the COMMERCIAL application of science, right?
> 
> So when you say you sell CMM's what exactly does that mean?  Do you call on customers?  Do you prepare price quotes?  Do you work with them on SoR's?  What exactly do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do all that. I'm the only salesperson at my company who goes after new business. The other salespeople sell to anyone who calls in or they sell new cmm's to existing customers.
> 
> And we measure anything that has to be right within mm or microns. Turbines, pharmaceutical, manufacturing. We don't sell cnc"'s we sell cmm's. One of our competitors is Zeiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your equipment is not installed in CNC applications at all?  Just used for QA/QC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. A cmm is a machine itself. Could be huge could be the size of a copier. Boeing has to measure turbine blades to make sure their planes are built right
Click to expand...

Do you prepare SoR's?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
Click to expand...

You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> ... then maybe God*s* do
> ... or maybe not.
> 
> Maybe we will never know because we don't even know what it means to be a "god".
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a government school grad, huh?
> Bet they never told you that our memorializing documents are based on the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"They told you"? _LOL.
> I am not a dogmatic follower with a  useless brain. I attended 5 public schools/college and a private university in the Ivy League. Learned critical thinking skills in rhetoric classes and philosophy & sciences.
> The statesmen 200+ years ago were relatively ignorant, with some exception from Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> The Bible is 2,000 year-old trash when it comes to "God".
> Are you another sucker that believes that old cultural shit has any modern use in epistemology?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe that you are using critical thinking skills, then you don't know what critical thinking is.  What you are practicing is critical theory.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing everything you don't believe to justify what you do believe which of course is wrongheaded thinking.  Critical thinking is to critically challenge what you do believe to test its validity.  You are just another dumbass wanna be pretending to be intellectual.  You don't know shit.  You have never known shit and it is entirely likely that you will die never knowing shit..  You feel me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize you are emotional about your set-in-stone ancient "God" beliefs, but try to get a grip on your feelings before exercising whatever intellect you have.
> 
> *Critical thinking *reflects an *objective* evaluation of knowledge claims before adopting a belief.
> You obviously have the cart before the horse. You adopted a Christian-Catholic belief system before logical evaluation; your biased view tries to make things "fit" into your belief system that you are emotionally invested in.
> 
> To be *objective*, you need to not *ass*ume something is true before you start your evaluation.
> Does a "god" exist? We don't know, unless there is a valid logical argument to support its answer one way or another.
> Are you able to elucidate a *logical argument *for the existence of a single "God"?
> If so, please begin by stating your premises that lead to your logical conclusion ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just said this same thing on my reply, after yours. You're exactly right!
Click to expand...

Is this an ignostic-agnostic-atheist love triangle?  Or just a bromance?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> There's actually another option about "God" that could possibly be true. And it actually makes a lot of sense if true.
> 
> God is not a supernatural being, but an extra-terrestrial one. They came here, created us in their image using their DNA with the high ape at the time to use as a slave race, did what they needed, taught us what was necessary, and then left...
> 
> And we're here scratching our heads over it, and making stuff up afterwards.
> 
> This is what the Sumerians said 6000 years ago. And their texts are what most every other major religion is based on. So that is another option to add to the list of what "God" is or isn't...


You speak Sumerian?


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Trumps election is proof that God is a comedian
Click to expand...

And that He is laughing at liberals.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So He doesn't exist, doesn't care, is unaware, likes the savagery, or is just a really bad Player in the Universal God Game.
> 
> We should be travelling to other star systems by now. Except that religion keeps erasing our knowledge for the benefit of the ruler.
> 
> We have to start over every 1000 years or so.... Why?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an idiotic statement.  The external locus of control is strong in this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the omnipotent benevolent God, do you not?
> 
> And being an engineer, you know the mass reboots we have undertaken as a species based on religious genocide and wiping out of prior knowledge, right?
> 
> And where we could possibly be at this point in terms of medicine and science, if those religious reboots never happened?
> 
> So where was your omnipotent and benevolent God, during the times of human crisis?
> 
> And if he just lets us do our own thing without intervention, and roots for those that believe in him, then that means he doesn't care.
> 
> Or he doesn't have the power to care.
> 
> Or maybe, He likes seeing the evil and destruction he can cause in his video game of our universe, before he has to go to dinner.
> 
> Or... maybe... he just doesn't exist? And we made Him up to explain stuff we haven't yet explained?
> 
> 
> _*Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im trying to think religiously. They would say we have free will or that everything happens for a reason or that we can't have all the answers or its gods will.
> 
> Fact is your questions debunk the God that supposedly visits cares and occasionally interveens. Unless you believe one of the thousands of religions and in that case pick any one of them they have all the answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my argument. What religions give us as "God", are simply ways to control us, and get powerful and rich. This omnipotent and benevolent being cannot exist based on the facts of history.
> 
> So maybe God is now a more watered down version, and has lost some of His abilities, and no longer has the power to intervene. This would be my hopeful version for religious zealots...
> 
> Otherwise, He's evil and watching, and munching on popcorn, to see what the heck we do next, and what other dramas we create, while He roots for the people that believe in Him to kill all the others...
> 
> Or He's completely unaware of our situation. He created us and has since then moved on to better things...
> 
> Or, He's playing a video game in such an advanced state of AI, that it can simulate all of us, along with the rest of universe. He's not good or bad in that scenario, it's just a simulation that He's playing, and we're part of it.
> 
> Or, of course, He very possibly doesn't
> 
> In any of these options, there are no reasons to love this "god" and believe that it is looking out for your welfare. There is no reason to believe false rulers who claim to talk to this "god", and hand down rules and restrictions and tax their followers. They grow rich and powerful based on the ignorance and naive nature of their followers. And there is especially no reason to kill another person based on the command of one of these false rulers!
> 
> But that's what religion has done for over 4000 years after the original Sumerian tales of Creation. They changed the stories to suit their objectives, and gain power and wealth. They used "believers" to kill their enemies and gain more power and wealth. Because only a person that believes that they are doing something that "God" commanded them to, would go and kill others knowing that it meant their own death. Esp in times before guns and long-range weapons. They kill and die for the glory they expect in the "afterlife" that their ruler told them would happen.
> 
> But that's obviously not true.
> 
> 
> So again, I ask people who believe in these things...  *Why is the idea of "God" being real, important to you?
> *
> Isn't it good enough just to have something inside that makes you feel good? Faith in goodness? Faith in that doing good to others is better than doing bad to others? So why are "God" and the associated religions necessary?
> 
> Because, they're killin us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before I finish I had a thought.
> 
> Does a bison know about the maggot it created when it took a shit?
> 
> Or, if you create a computer are you aware of every little thing happening inside the computer? You don't want the computer to break down so you fix it. God won't fix our sun when it decides to burn out.
> 
> Sorry, I'll keep reading your post now
Click to expand...

Technically the bison didn't create the maggot when it took a shit.  The maggot exists therefore it is.  That's philosophy 101.

If you create a computer are you aware of every little thing happening inside the computer?  No, but you know how it works and what it is will do.  

You don't fix something that is not broke.  That's philosophy 102.

The sun is supposed to burn out.  That's how other elements beside hydrogen and helium are formed.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> No one starts wars over generic God.



Except atheists.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your christian gods .... not the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's a registered Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't exist.  Maybe that's why Hillary actually won the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Technically she didn't.  You don't understand how a represented government works.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Deist:  The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. *Deism* thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.


Not exactly.  There's a spectrum just like everything else.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are a buyer. You don't sound like an engineer.
> 
> I'm not telling you who I work for
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask who you work for.  I asked what kind of CMM's you sold.  Are you telling me that you can't tell what your CMM's are measuring without telling me who you work for?
> 
> I spec out and purchase equipment all the time.  Our purchasing department won't purchase shit unless I tell them what to buy.  I write SoR''s and get price quotes.  You do realize that engineering is the COMMERCIAL application of science, right?
> 
> So when you say you sell CMM's what exactly does that mean?  Do you call on customers?  Do you prepare price quotes?  Do you work with them on SoR's?  What exactly do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do all that. I'm the only salesperson at my company who goes after new business. The other salespeople sell to anyone who calls in or they sell new cmm's to existing customers.
> 
> And we measure anything that has to be right within mm or microns. Turbines, pharmaceutical, manufacturing. We don't sell cnc"'s we sell cmm's. One of our competitors is Zeiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your equipment is not installed in CNC applications at all?  Just used for QA/QC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. A cmm is a machine itself. Could be huge could be the size of a copier. Boeing has to measure turbine blades to make sure their planes are built right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you prepare SoR's?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of. What's that stand for? Quotes?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your christian gods .... not the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's a registered Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't exist.  Maybe that's why Hillary actually won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically she didn't.  You don't understand how a represented government works.
Click to expand...

Technically you don't know what the popular vote is


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deist:  The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. *Deism* thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly.  There's a spectrum just like everything else.
Click to expand...

Yes, cherry picking what you accept or like from christianity. I've seen hints of Christianity in boss although he tries to argue from a deist standpoint or maybe you wouldn't call him a deist because he claims it does care and he's talked to it. You like Christianity because you think it's a good lie. Don't try to pretend for thousands of years they preached the bible as facts and written by God and even to this day many believe that.

You must think people would be worse without religion. Not so. We still want no crime just like you. And we agree fucking someone's wife is not cool. And listen and respect your parents and don't kill. He knows if you've been sleeping he knows if you are awake he knows if you've been bad


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask who you work for.  I asked what kind of CMM's you sold.  Are you telling me that you can't tell what your CMM's are measuring without telling me who you work for?
> 
> I spec out and purchase equipment all the time.  Our purchasing department won't purchase shit unless I tell them what to buy.  I write SoR''s and get price quotes.  You do realize that engineering is the COMMERCIAL application of science, right?
> 
> So when you say you sell CMM's what exactly does that mean?  Do you call on customers?  Do you prepare price quotes?  Do you work with them on SoR's?  What exactly do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> I do all that. I'm the only salesperson at my company who goes after new business. The other salespeople sell to anyone who calls in or they sell new cmm's to existing customers.
> 
> And we measure anything that has to be right within mm or microns. Turbines, pharmaceutical, manufacturing. We don't sell cnc"'s we sell cmm's. One of our competitors is Zeiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your equipment is not installed in CNC applications at all?  Just used for QA/QC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. A cmm is a machine itself. Could be huge could be the size of a copier. Boeing has to measure turbine blades to make sure their planes are built right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you prepare SoR's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that I know of. What's that stand for? Quotes?
Click to expand...

You sell highly specialized precision equipment and you don't know that SoR stands for statement of requirements?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's election is proof that God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your christian gods .... not the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's a registered Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't exist.  Maybe that's why Hillary actually won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically she didn't.  You don't understand how a represented government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically you don't know what the popular vote is
Click to expand...

I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deist:  The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. *Deism* thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly.  There's a spectrum just like everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, cherry picking what you accept or like from christianity. I've seen hints of Christianity in boss although he tries to argue from a deist standpoint or maybe you wouldn't call him a deist because he claims it does care and he's talked to it. You like Christianity because you think it's a good lie. Don't try to pretend for thousands of years they preached the bible as facts and written by God and even to this day many believe that.
> 
> You must think people would be worse without religion. Not so. We still want no crime just like you. And we agree fucking someone's wife is not cool. And listen and respect your parents and don't kill. He knows if you've been sleeping he knows if you are awake he knows if you've been bad
Click to expand...

I know people would be worse without religion and I couldn't care less if you get religion.  You think you have me and religion all figured out.  I know better.  Go and lead your life anyway you want.  Follow any moral code you want.  Your outcomes will be the judge.


----------



## BreezeWood

.

_*"I know people would be worse without religion"*_


is religion the same as the economy in a secular society ...

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> _*"I know people would be worse without religion"*_
> 
> 
> is religion the same as the economy in a secular society ...
> 
> .


That sounds like the argument that a subversive leftist would make.  Are you a subversive leftist?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> your christian gods .... not the Almighty.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's a registered Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God doesn't exist.  Maybe that's why Hillary actually won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically she didn't.  You don't understand how a represented government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically you don't know what the popular vote is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.




is that why all 29 electoral votes for Florida went to Trump ....



* I do not believe you, your claim you woke up differently, you just woke up more so than you already were and claimed something new that never happened much the same as your rendition of historical christianity - delusional both before and after.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> _*"I know people would be worse without religion"*_
> 
> 
> is religion the same as the economy in a secular society ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like the argument that a subversive leftist would make.  Are you a subversive leftist?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> That sounds like the argument that a subversive leftist would make. Are you a subversive leftist?




you fell for that one.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's a registered Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.  Maybe that's why Hillary actually won the popular vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically she didn't.  You don't understand how a represented government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically you don't know what the popular vote is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that why all 29 electoral votes for Florida went to Trump ....
> 
> 
> 
> * I do not believe you, your claim you woke up differently, you just woke up more so than you already were and claimed something new that never happened much the same as your rendition of historical christianity - delusional both before and after.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Was it 29?  If so, yes, that is exactly why.  He won that state.  And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state.  That's how that shit works, Ivan.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> _*"I know people would be worse without religion"*_
> 
> 
> is religion the same as the economy in a secular society ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like the argument that a subversive leftist would make.  Are you a subversive leftist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like the argument that a subversive leftist would make. Are you a subversive leftist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you fell for that one.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I don't believe I did, Ivan.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't exist.  Maybe that's why Hillary actually won the popular vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically she didn't.  You don't understand how a represented government works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically you don't know what the popular vote is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that why all 29 electoral votes for Florida went to Trump ....
> 
> 
> 
> * I do not believe you, your claim you woke up differently, you just woke up more so than you already were and claimed something new that never happened much the same as your rendition of historical christianity - delusional both before and after.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it 29?  If so, yes, that is exactly why.  He won that state.  And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state.  That's how that shit works, Ivan.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Was it 29? If so, yes, that is exactly why. He won that state. And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state. That's how that shit works, Ivan.





ding said:


> I know that the _*entire population*_ of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to _*represent*_ more than its population.




bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.

.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> It's just all too silly to take serious but far too many adults take this shit literally.


Have you ever thought that it was all deliberately written that way to divert the enemies of the authors, both the godless and the irrational who either dismiss the stories as ridiculous or take it literally and go insane. Either way the hidden teaching remains hidden in plain sight buried, protected and perpetuated by the enemies of the people who wrote the book who still do not think very deeply to this day..


So he drove the man out and to the east of eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming and flashing sword that turns in every direction, *to guard the way to the tree of life*."



Damn smart them ancient goat herders if you ask me.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just all too silly to take serious but far too many adults take this shit literally.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought that it was all deliberately written that way to divert the enemies of the authors, both the godless and the irrational who either dismiss the stories as ridiculous or take it literally and go insane. Either way the hidden teaching remains hidden in plain sight buried, protected and perpetuated by the enemies of the people who wrote the book who still do not think very deeply to this day..
> 
> 
> So he drove the man out and to the east of eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming and flashing sword that turns in every direction, *to guard the way to the tree of life*."
> 
> 
> 
> Damn smart them ancient goat herders if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Like Martin Luther who would beat himself bloody with reeds and punished himself by laying in the snow naked? He felt the suffering brought him closer to the Lord.

He was sure he was living in the end of times just like people today believe we are living in the end of days.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just all too silly to take serious but far too many adults take this shit literally.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought that it was all deliberately written that way to divert the enemies of the authors, both the godless and the irrational who either dismiss the stories as ridiculous or take it literally and go insane. Either way the hidden teaching remains hidden in plain sight buried, protected and perpetuated by the enemies of the people who wrote the book who still do not think very deeply to this day..
> 
> 
> So he drove the man out and to the east of eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming and flashing sword that turns in every direction, *to guard the way to the tree of life*."
> 
> 
> 
> Damn smart them ancient goat herders if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Martin Luther who would beat himself bloody with reeds and punished himself by laying in the snow naked? He felt the suffering brought him closer to the Lord.
> 
> He was sure he was living in the end of times just like people today believe we are living in the end of days.
Click to expand...


No, I wasn't talking about him, he didn't write the book, but it seems to have had its desired effect on both of you.

You dismiss it as ridiculous, he went mad. The secrets to the kingdom of heaven remain locked up and hidden in a vault gliding safely through time,  well out of reach,  obscured by the clouds,   high above your head.




"Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them.."


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically she didn't.  You don't understand how a represented government works.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically you don't know what the popular vote is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that why all 29 electoral votes for Florida went to Trump ....
> 
> 
> 
> * I do not believe you, your claim you woke up differently, you just woke up more so than you already were and claimed something new that never happened much the same as your rendition of historical christianity - delusional both before and after.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it 29?  If so, yes, that is exactly why.  He won that state.  And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state.  That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it 29? If so, yes, that is exactly why. He won that state. And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state. That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the _*entire population*_ of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to _*represent*_ more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Ahhhh....  the religion of humanism.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically you don't know what the popular vote is
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that why all 29 electoral votes for Florida went to Trump ....
> 
> 
> 
> * I do not believe you, your claim you woke up differently, you just woke up more so than you already were and claimed something new that never happened much the same as your rendition of historical christianity - delusional both before and after.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it 29?  If so, yes, that is exactly why.  He won that state.  And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state.  That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it 29? If so, yes, that is exactly why. He won that state. And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state. That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the _*entire population*_ of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to _*represent*_ more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhh....  the religion of humanism.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Ahhhh.... the religion of humanism




why is there both humanism and christianity ...








your claim with humanbeing morals are encompassed through your gods by christianity could not be any further from the truth, morals are a secular bearing to be chosen from and is the origin for your religions errant path. especially for a deist.

.


----------



## Mudda

God is sitting around taking names of people who have been bad so he can burn them in hell.

Yep, makes perfect sense.


----------



## there4eyeM

Ahh...the religion of distorting language so that it can be used to serve an agenda.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that why all 29 electoral votes for Florida went to Trump ....
> 
> 
> 
> * I do not believe you, your claim you woke up differently, you just woke up more so than you already were and claimed something new that never happened much the same as your rendition of historical christianity - delusional both before and after.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it 29?  If so, yes, that is exactly why.  He won that state.  And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state.  That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it 29? If so, yes, that is exactly why. He won that state. And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state. That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the _*entire population*_ of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to _*represent*_ more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhh....  the religion of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh.... the religion of humanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is there both humanism and christianity ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your claim with humanbeing morals are encompassed through your gods by christianity could not be any further from the truth, morals are a secular bearing to be chosen from and is the origin for your religions errant path. especially for a deist.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Communism is naturalized humanism.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the entire population of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to represent more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that why all 29 electoral votes for Florida went to Trump ....
> 
> 
> 
> * I do not believe you, your claim you woke up differently, you just woke up more so than you already were and claimed something new that never happened much the same as your rendition of historical christianity - delusional both before and after.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it 29?  If so, yes, that is exactly why.  He won that state.  And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state.  That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it 29? If so, yes, that is exactly why. He won that state. And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state. That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the _*entire population*_ of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to _*represent*_ more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhh....  the religion of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh.... the religion of humanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is there both humanism and christianity ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your claim with humanbeing morals are encompassed through your gods by christianity could not be any further from the truth, morals are a secular bearing to be chosen from and is the origin for your religions errant path. especially for a deist.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> Ahh...the religion of distorting language so that it can be used to serve an agenda.


I, Rigoberta Manchu


----------



## rightwinger

Mudda said:


> God is sitting around taking names of people who have been bad so he can burn them in hell.
> 
> Yep, makes perfect sense.


No, that is Santa


----------



## RWS

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> In that theory, you get your Creation and beings with "super powers", you get your science, and it makes sense why the stories branched out into so many different and confusing paths afterwards, and why we fight about it. You just have to allow the possibility of an ET visiting the Earth in ancient times, like the Anunnaki ("those who from heaven to earth came"). If you can allow that possibility, then it is a very compelling argument indeed.
> 
> But regardless, it is not necessary in this discussion, except maybe in a historical context of what "God" originally was to the first people to learn how to write, who were also the first civilization known to man. And the plagiarism that took place afterwards that gave us our current God(s).... Maybe it is necessary in that understanding...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out. You said ET.
> 
> When I suggested that possibility, a rational one, for some mysterious reason it made someone else freak out as if they felt threatened and they began hysterically demanding proof. lol.....
> 
> 
> Another possibility is that there was an advanced civilization on the other side of this planet that achieved flight, came down from the sky, established a colony among superstitious neolithic hunter gatherers in the middle east,  took great pains to try and civilize them with little success, and eventually said screw this place and left..
> 
> Then of course, maybe it is just like reported in scripture. Some sort of inter-dimensional contact via the mind with perfected beings from a higher realm of intelligent life who took great pains to try and civilize people of this world,  with little success, and eventually said screw this place and left..
Click to expand...


Let them come at me with the ET stuff! 

I will argue the possibilities of ET's till I'm blue in the face (or green or gray), but i do not believe it's a truth yet... To me, they are very possible and can explain a lot of things in our history. So they are certainly something to consider as an option, and infinitely more possible than the OBG. The problem people have with aliens (besides religious ones) are the difficulties of interstellar travel based on our current state of scientific knowledge. I think given enough time we should overcome those difficulties and be able to travel to planets like ours outside our solar system, and that is a goal of science. So there's no reason to think beings from another planet haven't figured it out before us, and visited us.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
Click to expand...


Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.

The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.

Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.

You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.

My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.

Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed. 

Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing... 

So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
Click to expand...

I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's actually another option about "God" that could possibly be true. And it actually makes a lot of sense if true.
> 
> God is not a supernatural being, but an extra-terrestrial one. They came here, created us in their image using their DNA with the high ape at the time to use as a slave race, did what they needed, taught us what was necessary, and then left...
> 
> And we're here scratching our heads over it, and making stuff up afterwards.
> 
> This is what the Sumerians said 6000 years ago. And their texts are what most every other major religion is based on. So that is another option to add to the list of what "God" is or isn't...
> 
> 
> 
> You speak Sumerian?
Click to expand...


Probably more than you speak Hebrew... 

Where exactly do you base your bible from? And what language was it written in?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's actually another option about "God" that could possibly be true. And it actually makes a lot of sense if true.
> 
> God is not a supernatural being, but an extra-terrestrial one. They came here, created us in their image using their DNA with the high ape at the time to use as a slave race, did what they needed, taught us what was necessary, and then left...
> 
> And we're here scratching our heads over it, and making stuff up afterwards.
> 
> This is what the Sumerians said 6000 years ago. And their texts are what most every other major religion is based on. So that is another option to add to the list of what "God" is or isn't...
> 
> 
> 
> You speak Sumerian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably more than you speak Hebrew...
> 
> Where exactly do you base your bible from? And what language was it written in?
Click to expand...

Why does that matter?


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
Click to expand...


I asked for a negative aspect of religion, you ignorant slut...


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's actually another option about "God" that could possibly be true. And it actually makes a lot of sense if true.
> 
> God is not a supernatural being, but an extra-terrestrial one. They came here, created us in their image using their DNA with the high ape at the time to use as a slave race, did what they needed, taught us what was necessary, and then left...
> 
> And we're here scratching our heads over it, and making stuff up afterwards.
> 
> This is what the Sumerians said 6000 years ago. And their texts are what most every other major religion is based on. So that is another option to add to the list of what "God" is or isn't...
> 
> 
> 
> You speak Sumerian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably more than you speak Hebrew...
> 
> Where exactly do you base your bible from? And what language was it written in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does that matter?
Click to expand...


Because the OT was written in Hebrew, yet you're somehow an expert. And I'm also pretty sure you don't speak Greek either. So why ask me if I speak Sumerian?


----------



## there4eyeM

As the meaning of the word 'religion' has obviously been totally obscured here, positive or negative effects from it are going to be hard to determine.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked for a negative aspect of religion, you ignorant slut...
Click to expand...

I'll accept whatever you want to assign to it.  How's that?  You are quite the brave keyboard warrior.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's actually another option about "God" that could possibly be true. And it actually makes a lot of sense if true.
> 
> God is not a supernatural being, but an extra-terrestrial one. They came here, created us in their image using their DNA with the high ape at the time to use as a slave race, did what they needed, taught us what was necessary, and then left...
> 
> And we're here scratching our heads over it, and making stuff up afterwards.
> 
> This is what the Sumerians said 6000 years ago. And their texts are what most every other major religion is based on. So that is another option to add to the list of what "God" is or isn't...
> 
> 
> 
> You speak Sumerian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably more than you speak Hebrew...
> 
> Where exactly do you base your bible from? And what language was it written in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the OT was written in Hebrew, yet you're somehow an expert. And I'm also pretty sure you don't speak Greek either. So why ask me if I speak Sumerian?
Click to expand...

It was to point out that the Sumerians no longer exist, Einstein.  The Bible has been translated into many languages.  Western Civilization was built on the Christian values of the Bible.


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> As the meaning of the word 'religion' has obviously been totally obscured here, positive or negative effects from it are going to be hard to determine.


No.  It's pretty easy.  Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.


----------



## RWS

there4eyeM said:


> As the meaning of the word 'religion' has obviously been totally obscured here, positive or negative effects from it are going to be hard to determine.



Well, I'm personally talking about organized religions that use torture or the threat of death and "hell" to get new recruits, and the promise of salvation to create armies willing to kill and die for the religion. Which, are the 3 major biblical religions that are causing all the problems in the last 2000+ years, and their deviant offspring.

I have nothing against personal faith.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's actually another option about "God" that could possibly be true. And it actually makes a lot of sense if true.
> 
> God is not a supernatural being, but an extra-terrestrial one. They came here, created us in their image using their DNA with the high ape at the time to use as a slave race, did what they needed, taught us what was necessary, and then left...
> 
> And we're here scratching our heads over it, and making stuff up afterwards.
> 
> This is what the Sumerians said 6000 years ago. And their texts are what most every other major religion is based on. So that is another option to add to the list of what "God" is or isn't...
> 
> 
> 
> You speak Sumerian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably more than you speak Hebrew...
> 
> Where exactly do you base your bible from? And what language was it written in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the OT was written in Hebrew, yet you're somehow an expert. And I'm also pretty sure you don't speak Greek either. So why ask me if I speak Sumerian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was to point out that the Sumerians no longer exist, Einstein.  The Bible has been translated into many languages.  Western Civilization was built on the Christian values of the Bible.
Click to expand...


But the OT was a plagiarism of much more ancient texts that said totally different things about life and their superiors. Originating with the Sumerians 2000 years prior to the OT. Which has also been translated into many languages, but conveniently ignored by religious groups.


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> As the meaning of the word 'religion' has obviously been totally obscured here, positive or negative effects from it are going to be hard to determine.


Here's some good advice for you....

Matt Walsh:  Hey, smug millennial liberals — here are some New Year’s resolutions for you


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You speak Sumerian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably more than you speak Hebrew...
> 
> Where exactly do you base your bible from? And what language was it written in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the OT was written in Hebrew, yet you're somehow an expert. And I'm also pretty sure you don't speak Greek either. So why ask me if I speak Sumerian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was to point out that the Sumerians no longer exist, Einstein.  The Bible has been translated into many languages.  Western Civilization was built on the Christian values of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the OT was a plagiarism of much more ancient texts that said totally different things. Originating with the Sumerians 2000 years prior to the OT.
Click to expand...

The first 11 chapters of the Bible is the history of all nations.  What you perceive as being ripped off was in reality a shared belief which began in the cradle of civilization, Mesopotamia. 

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the meaning of the word 'religion' has obviously been totally obscured here, positive or negative effects from it are going to be hard to determine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm personally talking about organized religions that use torture or the threat of death and "hell" to get new recruits, and the promise of salvation to create armies willing to kill and die for the religion. Which, are the 3 major biblical religions that are causing all the problems in the last 2000+ years, and their deviant offspring.
> 
> I have nothing against personal faith.
Click to expand...

Great, I'm happy to accept those negatives, when are you going to attribute the 200 million people murdered by militant atheist rulers on the 20th century?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably more than you speak Hebrew...
> 
> Where exactly do you base your bible from? And what language was it written in?
> 
> 
> 
> Why does that matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the OT was written in Hebrew, yet you're somehow an expert. And I'm also pretty sure you don't speak Greek either. So why ask me if I speak Sumerian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was to point out that the Sumerians no longer exist, Einstein.  The Bible has been translated into many languages.  Western Civilization was built on the Christian values of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the OT was a plagiarism of much more ancient texts that said totally different things. Originating with the Sumerians 2000 years prior to the OT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first 11 chapters of the Bible is the history of all nations.  What you perceive as being ripped off was in reality a shared belief which began in the cradle of civilization, Mesopotamia.
> 
> The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago
Click to expand...

Proving that the bible is the word of the Chinese, not the word of God.


----------



## hobelim

RWS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> In that theory, you get your Creation and beings with "super powers", you get your science, and it makes sense why the stories branched out into so many different and confusing paths afterwards, and why we fight about it. You just have to allow the possibility of an ET visiting the Earth in ancient times, like the Anunnaki ("those who from heaven to earth came"). If you can allow that possibility, then it is a very compelling argument indeed.
> 
> But regardless, it is not necessary in this discussion, except maybe in a historical context of what "God" originally was to the first people to learn how to write, who were also the first civilization known to man. And the plagiarism that took place afterwards that gave us our current God(s).... Maybe it is necessary in that understanding...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out. You said ET.
> 
> When I suggested that possibility, a rational one, for some mysterious reason it made someone else freak out as if they felt threatened and they began hysterically demanding proof. lol.....
> 
> 
> Another possibility is that there was an advanced civilization on the other side of this planet that achieved flight, came down from the sky, established a colony among superstitious neolithic hunter gatherers in the middle east,  took great pains to try and civilize them with little success, and eventually said screw this place and left..
> 
> Then of course, maybe it is just like reported in scripture. Some sort of inter-dimensional contact via the mind with perfected beings from a higher realm of intelligent life who took great pains to try and civilize people of this world,  with little success, and eventually said screw this place and left..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let them come at me with the ET stuff!
> 
> I will argue the possibilities of ET's till I'm blue in the face (or green or gray), but i do not believe it's a truth yet... To me, they are very possible and can explain a lot of things in our history. So they are certainly something to consider as an option, and infinitely more possible than the OBG. The problem people have with aliens (besides religious ones) are the difficulties of interstellar travel based on our current state of scientific knowledge. I think given enough time we should overcome those difficulties and be able to travel to planets like ours outside our solar system, and that is a goal of science. So there's no reason to think beings from another planet haven't figured it out before us, and visited us.
Click to expand...



The problem with traveling vast distances of space and time is eliminated if ancient people in the middle east were visited by people from an advanced civilization from the other side of this planet but the only problem with that theory is that the prophets in scripture clearly reported that they were visited by living beings not of this world that only resembled a human being with the  semblance of a hand, seen and heard with their own eyes and ears either through dreams or visions, altered states of consciousness.

When Daniel had his vision, no one else present saw or heard a single thing even though they were sitting right next to him.

Perhaps they don't actually have to travel here physically to visit and influence people and affect the course history..They would only have to select one person from the scum of the earth, breathe the breath of life into their nostrils and form them into a living being like themselves who would have the outward appearance of a man....That would eliminate the problems presented by time and space and traveling across the universe. The laws of time and space and the limitations of a physical body do not apply in the realm of dreams. That would explain the lack of physical evidence. Who could provide evidence for anything seen and heard in a dream.?What could possibly validate such an experience aside from if what was foretold actually happened.?

 How could anyone even tell if another human being had eaten of the tree of life and succeeded in becoming, "one of us", even if they were dissected? 

Its fairly arrogant of people to dismiss the possibility of higher forms of intelligent life simply because they can't figure out how any living being from another world could possibly know the future of earth or travel through space and time.

...and I find it astonishing that some people profess to believe in angels in heaven or that Jesus, who said that his kingdom was not of this world,  floated up into the sky after he died but then say that the possibility of extraterrestrial life is crazy talk.


lol...


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> is that why all 29 electoral votes for Florida went to Trump ....
> 
> 
> 
> * I do not believe you, your claim you woke up differently, you just woke up more so than you already were and claimed something new that never happened much the same as your rendition of historical christianity - delusional both before and after.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Was it 29?  If so, yes, that is exactly why.  He won that state.  And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state.  That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it 29? If so, yes, that is exactly why. He won that state. And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state. That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the _*entire population*_ of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to _*represent*_ more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhh....  the religion of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh.... the religion of humanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is there both humanism and christianity ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your claim with humanbeing morals are encompassed through your gods by christianity could not be any further from the truth, morals are a secular bearing to be chosen from and is the origin for your religions errant path. especially for a deist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Communism is naturalized humanism.





ding said:


> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.










christianity is the example of moral relativity used as an excuse for their brutality and repression to insure their errant religions survival.

including those that cite the brutality of other persuasions while maintaining their own innocence, bing and proclaiming as in the past their disdain for appropriate remedies without merit simply for their own undeserved self preservation.

and continue the relativity of their uninterrupted history of misogyny.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it 29?  If so, yes, that is exactly why.  He won that state.  And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state.  That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it 29? If so, yes, that is exactly why. He won that state. And the 29 votes reflects the population of that state. That's how that shit works, Ivan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the _*entire population*_ of the country was represented in this election and that no state was allowed to _*represent*_ more than its population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhh....  the religion of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh.... the religion of humanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is there both humanism and christianity ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your claim with humanbeing morals are encompassed through your gods by christianity could not be any further from the truth, morals are a secular bearing to be chosen from and is the origin for your religions errant path. especially for a deist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> christianity is the example of moral relativity used as an excuse for their brutality and repression to insure their errant religions survival.
> 
> including those that cite the brutality of other persuasions while maintaining their own innocence, bing and proclaiming as in the past their disdain for appropriate remedies without merit simply for their own undeserved self preservation.
> 
> and continue the relativity of their uninterrupted history of misogyny.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Nothing relative about the religion.  Just the men. The religion of humanism is relative.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh....  the religion of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh.... the religion of humanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is there both humanism and christianity ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your claim with humanbeing morals are encompassed through your gods by christianity could not be any further from the truth, morals are a secular bearing to be chosen from and is the origin for your religions errant path. especially for a deist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> christianity is the example of moral relativity used as an excuse for their brutality and repression to insure their errant religions survival.
> 
> including those that cite the brutality of other persuasions while maintaining their own innocence, bing and proclaiming as in the past their disdain for appropriate remedies without merit simply for their own undeserved self preservation.
> 
> and continue the relativity of their uninterrupted history of misogyny.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing relative about the religion.  Just the men. The religion of humanism is relative.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Nothing relative about the religion. Just the men. The religion of humanism is relative.




your religion is relative because you have no proof for any of its tenants to be truthful, i e an etching in stone from the time of Jesus corroborating anything "written" ... among other reasons.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh....  the religion of humanism.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh.... the religion of humanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is there both humanism and christianity ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your claim with humanbeing morals are encompassed through your gods by christianity could not be any further from the truth, morals are a secular bearing to be chosen from and is the origin for your religions errant path. especially for a deist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> christianity is the example of moral relativity used as an excuse for their brutality and repression to insure their errant religions survival.
> 
> including those that cite the brutality of other persuasions while maintaining their own innocence, bing and proclaiming as in the past their disdain for appropriate remedies without merit simply for their own undeserved self preservation.
> 
> and continue the relativity of their uninterrupted history of misogyny.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing relative about the religion.  Just the men. The religion of humanism is relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing relative about the religion. Just the men. The religion of humanism is relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your religion is relative because you have no proof for any of its tenants to be truthful, i e an etching in stone from the time of Jesus corroborating anything "written" ... among other reasons.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That's not what relative means.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
Click to expand...


If you are referring to "socialist" countries, then the truth is that they are also a religion. They're a form of Calvinism and Puritanism, minus the "god" part.

And it's also a false religion because the purpose of Socialism is to lead the people to Communism. Which will never happen! It's their version of "heaven". An ideal that does not exist, but causes people to continue to give everything they have to benefit the rulers, in the futile hope that they can get there, and the fear of death if they don't. 

So the so-called "atheist" countries that you mention in the 20th century, are actually devout religions. 

And like every other religion, they will kill everyone who stands in their way...


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> why is there both humanism and christianity ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your claim with humanbeing morals are encompassed through your gods by christianity could not be any further from the truth, morals are a secular bearing to be chosen from and is the origin for your religions errant path. especially for a deist.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral relativity is the bread and butter of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> christianity is the example of moral relativity used as an excuse for their brutality and repression to insure their errant religions survival.
> 
> including those that cite the brutality of other persuasions while maintaining their own innocence, bing and proclaiming as in the past their disdain for appropriate remedies without merit simply for their own undeserved self preservation.
> 
> and continue the relativity of their uninterrupted history of misogyny.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing relative about the religion.  Just the men. The religion of humanism is relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing relative about the religion. Just the men. The religion of humanism is relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your religion is relative because you have no proof for any of its tenants to be truthful, i e an etching in stone from the time of Jesus corroborating anything "written" ... among other reasons.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what relative means.
Click to expand...


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Wiki, there are approximately 4,200 religions in the world.
> 
> Now, using that as a number going forward, and based on the meaning of being devoted to a religion, and that each one believes that their's is infallibly correct, that means that 4,199 of them are flat-out wrong!!!
> 
> Wow...
> 
> And given enough prodding, they're willing to kill the other 4,199 religions, and all the people that believe in them,  just to prove they're right!
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
Click to expand...


No. You said you are objective...

So tell me negative things about religion. Otherwise, you're just spouting stuff that you were brainwashed with as a child. And still believe as an adult.


----------



## Mudda

The bible can be traced back to the Chinese, and I bet they're still laughing about how all the white folks fell for it so easily.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are referring to "socialist" countries, then the truth is that they are also a religion. They're a form of Calvinism and Puritanism, minus the "god" part.
> 
> And it's also a false religion because the purpose of Socialism is to lead the people to Communism. Which will never happen! It's their version of "heaven". An ideal that does not exist, but causes people to continue to give everything they have to benefit the rulers, in the futile hope that they can get there, and the fear of death if they don't.
> 
> So the so-called "atheist" countries that you mention in the 20th century, are actually devout religions.
> 
> And like every other religion, they will kill everyone who stands in their way...
Click to expand...

Yes, atheism is a religion.  No, not all religions kill everything in their way.


----------



## Mudda

Was Jesus Chinese as well?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all have common elements because there are natural laws.  You seem more than ready to blame religion for the bad but very reluctant to give religion any credit for the good.
> 
> Despite the fact that you are making a fringe argument, your argument has two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Religion promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Religion is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions. Religious persons and institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Religion gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Religion teaches accountability and responsibility. Religion teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Religion inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Religion helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Religion serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Religion brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Religion brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Religion teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Religion gave us America. Religion gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> So getting back to my point that your argument has two major flaws; your argument that God and religion have done little good is not objective and you have yet to tell us what good the alternative to religion has done. Exactly what has atheism done? Because as near as I can tell, atheism's claim to fame is murdering 200 million people in the 20th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You said you are objective...
> 
> So tell me negative things about religion. Otherwise, you're just spouting stuff that you were brainwashed with as a child. And still believe as an adult.
Click to expand...

Actually, no it doesn't mean that.  I'm not the one who is practicing critical theory.  That's what you are doing.  I don't define my beliefs by criticizing what I don't believe.  Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon.  By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good.  Do you believe that Western Civilization has not been a force for good?  In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.  The logical conclusion of your argument is that religion should be banned.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You said you are objective...
> 
> So tell me negative things about religion. Otherwise, you're just spouting stuff that you were brainwashed with as a child. And still believe as an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no it doesn't mean that.  I'm not the one who is practicing critical theory.  That's what you are doing.  I don't define my beliefs by criticizing what I don't believe.  Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon.  By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good.  Do you believe that Western Civilization has not been a force for good?  In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.  The logical conclusion of your argument is that religion should be banned.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.




a rather pathetic statement ... how else could a christian characterize their religion.

with his trumpet blaring ...
.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You said you are objective...
> 
> So tell me negative things about religion. Otherwise, you're just spouting stuff that you were brainwashed with as a child. And still believe as an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no it doesn't mean that.  I'm not the one who is practicing critical theory.  That's what you are doing.  I don't define my beliefs by criticizing what I don't believe.  Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon.  By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good.  Do you believe that Western Civilization has not been a force for good?  In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.  The logical conclusion of your argument is that religion should be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a rather pathetic statement ... how else could a christian characterize their religion.
> 
> with his trumpet blaring ...
> .
Click to expand...

Maybe you can tell me about your beliefs of God then.  How's that?  Can you share with me what you believe about God?  Tell me if you believe God is good or bad?  Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Can you tell me anything at all about your beliefs?


----------



## BreezeWood

.
christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .


Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.




ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
.


----------



## Brynmr

BreezeWood said:


> a rather pathetic statement ... how else could a christian characterize their religion.
> 
> with his trumpet blaring ...
> .



The mistake you're _conveniently_ making for your own benefit is any terrible actions realized by Christians, you're attributing to the Christian religion and therefore judging the religion as a terrible religion. Their religion doesn't tell them to perform terrible actions.

In other words, you're full of crap.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
Click to expand...

Is it that you don't believe in God?  Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?


----------



## Brynmr

BreezeWood said:


> bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.
> 
> .



You must be one of those snowflakes who are so easily offended and feels threatened. 

I'm not a Christian nor would I ever be a Christian but Christianity doesn't scare me nor does it threaten me.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it that you don't believe in God?  Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Is it that you don't believe in God? Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?



I'm trying to be helpful yet not one christian leader stands out for me to chose from including before the 4th century, you know someone who at least did not salivate over persecuting inocent souls or fouht to free the meek, it's just a blank ... sorry.





Brynmr said:


> The mistake you're _conveniently_ making for your own benefit is any terrible actions realized by Christians, you're attributing to the Christian religion and therefore judging the religion as a terrible religion. Their religion doesn't tell them to perform terrible actions.



so give us your christian figure from the 4th century to the present you admire the most, and their accomplishment or that of a christian congregation. for maybe just South America from the time of Columbus to the present.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it that you don't believe in God?  Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it that you don't believe in God? Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to be helpful yet not one christian leader stands out for me to chose from including before the 4th century, you know someone who at least did not salivate over persecuting inocent souls or fouht to free the meek, it's just a blank ... sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake you're _conveniently_ making for your own benefit is any terrible actions realized by Christians, you're attributing to the Christian religion and therefore judging the religion as a terrible religion. Their religion doesn't tell them to perform terrible actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so give us your christian figure from the 4th century to the present you admire the most, and their accomplishment or that of a christian congregation. for maybe just South America from the time of Columbus to the present.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to go with you.  Now will you tell me what your beliefs are on God?


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it that you don't believe in God?  Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it that you don't believe in God? Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to be helpful yet not one christian leader stands out for me to chose from including before the 4th century, you know someone who at least did not salivate over persecuting inocent souls or fouht to free the meek, it's just a blank ... sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake you're _conveniently_ making for your own benefit is any terrible actions realized by Christians, you're attributing to the Christian religion and therefore judging the religion as a terrible religion. Their religion doesn't tell them to perform terrible actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so give us your christian figure from the 4th century to the present you admire the most, and their accomplishment or that of a christian congregation. for maybe just South America from the time of Columbus to the present.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No.  I changed my mind.  I pick Muhammad.  Tell me about the bad things Muhammad did, ok?  I pick Muhammad.


----------



## ding




----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it that you don't believe in God?  Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it that you don't believe in God? Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to be helpful yet not one christian leader stands out for me to chose from including before the 4th century, you know someone who at least did not salivate over persecuting inocent souls or fouht to free the meek, it's just a blank ... sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake you're _conveniently_ making for your own benefit is any terrible actions realized by Christians, you're attributing to the Christian religion and therefore judging the religion as a terrible religion. Their religion doesn't tell them to perform terrible actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so give us your christian figure from the 4th century to the present you admire the most, and their accomplishment or that of a christian congregation. for maybe just South America from the time of Columbus to the present.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I changed my mind.  I pick Muhammad.  Tell me about the bad things Muhammad did, ok?  I pick Muhammad.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> No. I changed my mind. I pick Muhammad. Tell me about the bad things Muhammad did, ok? I pick Muhammad.



really, Western Civilization, you really do know your history and obviously excelled in geography ...


actually I do not believe Mohammad was a christian but instead of South America maybe you can chose a christian leader that stood by the native Americans, you know those savages you care so much for.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it that you don't believe in God?  Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it that you don't believe in God? Is that why you can't tell me your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to be helpful yet not one christian leader stands out for me to chose from including before the 4th century, you know someone who at least did not salivate over persecuting inocent souls or fouht to free the meek, it's just a blank ... sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brynmr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake you're _conveniently_ making for your own benefit is any terrible actions realized by Christians, you're attributing to the Christian religion and therefore judging the religion as a terrible religion. Their religion doesn't tell them to perform terrible actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so give us your christian figure from the 4th century to the present you admire the most, and their accomplishment or that of a christian congregation. for maybe just South America from the time of Columbus to the present.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I changed my mind.  I pick Muhammad.  Tell me about the bad things Muhammad did, ok?  I pick Muhammad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I changed my mind. I pick Muhammad. Tell me about the bad things Muhammad did, ok? I pick Muhammad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really, Western Civilization, you really do know your history and obviously excelled in geography ...
> 
> 
> actually I do not believe Mohammad was a christian but instead of South America maybe you can chose a christian leader that stood by the native Americans, you know those savages you care so much for.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Brynmr

BreezeWood said:


> so give us your christian figure from the 4th century to the present you admire the most



Why would I do that? I'm not a Christian. Pick your own.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You said you are objective...
> 
> So tell me negative things about religion. Otherwise, you're just spouting stuff that you were brainwashed with as a child. And still believe as an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no it doesn't mean that.  I'm not the one who is practicing critical theory.  That's what you are doing.  I don't define my beliefs by criticizing what I don't believe.  Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon.  By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good.  Do you believe that Western Civilization has not been a force for good?  In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.  The logical conclusion of your argument is that religion should be banned.
Click to expand...

Yet that is what you ask us to do. 


ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are referring to "socialist" countries, then the truth is that they are also a religion. They're a form of Calvinism and Puritanism, minus the "god" part.
> 
> And it's also a false religion because the purpose of Socialism is to lead the people to Communism. Which will never happen! It's their version of "heaven". An ideal that does not exist, but causes people to continue to give everything they have to benefit the rulers, in the futile hope that they can get there, and the fear of death if they don't.
> 
> So the so-called "atheist" countries that you mention in the 20th century, are actually devout religions.
> 
> And like every other religion, they will kill everyone who stands in their way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, atheism is a religion.  No, not all religions kill everything in their way.
Click to expand...

Yes, atheism taken to an extreme is a religion. But I don't sense that here, otherwise I'd be on their ass just as bad... We are agnostics who question why people are killing each other, due to religion. And why their "god" doesn't step up to the plate and stop it.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's talk about the "flaws"...
> 
> 1. My analysis was made after studying many religions, and then science. And other alternatives to both.
> 
> 2. What I analyzed was completely objective. Not subjective like your borne-in religion. I completely wiped the slate, and started thinking things through objectively.
> 
> I also promote the value of thankfulness, forgiveness, goodness and the rest of the things you mention. But religion did not create those values. They are created by natural selection. A species that wants to kill their own for no reason, is not going to last long. Natural selection will dictate that they care for each other, so we can continue to copulate and flourish. However.... this principle goes *completely* against what religion has done to us throughout history.
> 
> Your major flaw is that your theory is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. You have absolutely no objectivity. You believe what you believe, because that is what you were taught, and you continue to promote it despite the evil that you admit it has caused.
> 
> Rule #1: Goodness does not require a religion or a God.
> 
> That is why I ask why you need a "God" and why it's so important to you that it exists?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a positive case for your beliefs.  You don't even know what a positive case is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You said you are objective...
> 
> So tell me negative things about religion. Otherwise, you're just spouting stuff that you were brainwashed with as a child. And still believe as an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no it doesn't mean that.  I'm not the one who is practicing critical theory.  That's what you are doing.  I don't define my beliefs by criticizing what I don't believe.  Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon.  By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good.  Do you believe that Western Civilization has not been a force for good?  In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.  The logical conclusion of your argument is that religion should be banned.
Click to expand...


You said you are being objective. Therefore you must practice critical theory.

You make claims such as "*Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon.  By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good*."

You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.

Based on your logic, slavery should also be a force for good. Which is understandable, based on the amount of slaves Christianity has created. 

Anyway, you asked us to practice critical theory, and yet you refuse to play the same game when I ask you the same question. And you're criticizing us for not being objective?


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no positive case for religion. What you deem as "positive cases" for religion, are actually just acts of goodness by people who care for other people. That has nothing to do with religion.
> 
> The fact that you have to attribute acts of goodness to religion, means that you yourself have such a negative view of humanity that you think the only thing that keeps us going and being "good" is your OBG.
> 
> Dogs do good things for other dogs. They don't go around yapping about Puppy Claws being the reason they do what they do and how other dogs should believe in it... They just do it because it is natural. Helps them maintain their species, their family, and themselves.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have this belief that without God or religion, we would all kill everyone because we don't have direction or a common goal or a sense of morality.
> 
> My argument, is that religion is the one killing everyone. Sane people like most of us here realize that, and shun religion for the evil that it is.
> 
> Religion has never caused any good. It has instead attributed to itself "good" things that humans normally do, as the reasons they do it. But that is false, and why you are brainwashed.
> 
> Religions would decimate a population and steal all their riches, and take the people that survive as slaves, and use that money and manpower to build holy monuments and cathedrals for their followers to visit, but that is actually NOT a "good" thing as you seem to believe! It is a very BAD thing...
> 
> So tell me something negative religion has done, if you're such an objective thinker...
> 
> 
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You said you are objective...
> 
> So tell me negative things about religion. Otherwise, you're just spouting stuff that you were brainwashed with as a child. And still believe as an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no it doesn't mean that.  I'm not the one who is practicing critical theory.  That's what you are doing.  I don't define my beliefs by criticizing what I don't believe.  Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon.  By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good.  Do you believe that Western Civilization has not been a force for good?  In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.  The logical conclusion of your argument is that religion should be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a rather pathetic statement ... how else could a christian characterize their religion.
> 
> with his trumpet blaring ...
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you can tell me about your beliefs of God then.  How's that?  Can you share with me what you believe about God?  Tell me if you believe God is good or bad?  Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Can you tell me anything at all about your beliefs?
Click to expand...


For me, personally, I believe in good. I don't need a supernatural being to tell me how to be good, or why I'm doing it.

Maybe there is something out there that we don't understand yet, and there is some sort of cosmic intelligence. But it really doesn't matter to me. It's not going to change who I am, nor how I am going to treat others, nor how I'm going to treat the world. Infinite possibilities are out there. If it's meant to be that I find out, well great! If not, it doesn't change who I am. I don't need a "god".

And, if I am good in my life, and there REALLY is a OBG just like you believe, and He doesn't like me because I didn't believe in him and sends me to hell....

Well, then, I'd rather rule in hell, than have to kiss his sorry ass.

So, as I asked before... Why do you need a god?


----------



## RWS

What bad things have you done, that you need forgiveness for in order to feel good about yourself?

Because likely, that's what it's all about. You've been bad, and since God will forgive you after a few prayers, you can feel good about yourself and start again. Until the next time you do something bad, and then you say a few "Hail Mary's" again, confess to some creepy priest in a box... and then start over again.

Christianity allows you to keep committing evil, get forgiven, and do it again! 

As long as you ask for forgiveness on a regular basis, you can keep doing all the evils you want. And feel good and righteous about it at the same time! 

People like me, we don't do evils. I don't have a guilty conscience. I don't need some imaginary being to forgive me. I don't need a "God".


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
Click to expand...

Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?


----------



## sealybobo

Brynmr said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> bing, you are a joke both by religion and politics - secularism has arrived for the betterment of both religion and politics inspite of your kind.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be one of those snowflakes who are so easily offended and feels threatened.
> 
> I'm not a Christian nor would I ever be a Christian but Christianity doesn't scare me nor does it threaten me.
Click to expand...

That because as of right now it doesn't seem like a harmful lie but it once was and some say it still is.

I go through Dearborn, mi and talk to 2000 nice Muslims and I don't see any terrorists so I say "Islam doesn't scare me". Doesn't change the fact it's a lie that could be used to threaten you.

Religion doesn't scare me because we live in a secular society


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
Click to expand...

.


sealybobo said:


> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?



I agree with you there are countless individuals through time who have honored religion in their lifetimes, all denominations.


I am secular first religious second, for there to be an afterlife in the Everlasting much as you claim to be an agnostic atheist.

innocence, the unjust crucifixion from an earlier time in the 4th century was changed from a religion to a political statement and used by the unjust to manipulate the public conscious for their own personal gain - and is an expense for real religion. bing.


when you prove the information of Life is organic physiology I would consider atheism, till then beyond physiology there is a dimension in the Everlasting I hope to become a part of.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you there are countless individuals through time who have honored religion in their lifetimes, all denominations.
> 
> 
> I am secular first religious second, for there to be an afterlife in the Everlasting much as you claim to be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> innocence, the unjust crucifixion from an earlier time in the 4th century was changed from a religion to a political statement and used by the unjust to manipulate the public conscious for their own personal gain - and is an expense for real religion. bing.
> 
> 
> when you prove the information of Life is organic physiology I would consider atheism, till then beyond physiology there is a dimension in the Everlasting I hope to become a part of.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You are a humanist.  Big surprise, lol.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
Click to expand...

It actually isn't.  They are called saints.  There is a big long list of the ones we know about.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Yet that is what you ask us to do.



No.  That is not what I ask you to do.  I don't care what you do.  I am pointing out that you are not objective when it comes to religion or God because you only see the bad and do not acknowledge that there has been any good.  You don't even realize that you are only able to be righteously indignant because religion has been a force for good.  If you had led your life outside of Western Civilization, you would not have been afforded the same standard of living, freedom and liberty that you enjoy now.  

The Least of These


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Yes, atheism taken to an extreme is a religion. But I don't sense that here, otherwise I'd be on their ass just as bad... We are agnostics who question why people are killing each other, due to religion. And why their "god" doesn't step up to the plate and stop it.



The fact that you don't argue against the atheist worldview like you do the Christian worldview tells me that you are not an agnostic.  The fact that you require perfection as proof of God's existence tells me you are not an agnostic.  I think you should consider the reality that you are not an agnostic.

Silly Beliefs - Agnostics - Valid Stance or Scam?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> You said you are being objective. Therefore you must practice critical theory.



No.  That's not correct.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to justify what you do believe without ever critically examining what you do believe.  two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.

Critical thinking is critically examining what you do believe to test its validity.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> You make claims such as "*Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon. By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good*."



This is self evident.  Can you name any other Civilization which has done more for humanity than Western Civilization?  Can you name any institution that has played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church?


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you there are countless individuals through time who have honored religion in their lifetimes, all denominations.
> 
> 
> I am secular first religious second, for there to be an afterlife in the Everlasting much as you claim to be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> innocence, the unjust crucifixion from an earlier time in the 4th century was changed from a religion to a political statement and used by the unjust to manipulate the public conscious for their own personal gain - and is an expense for real religion. bing.
> 
> 
> when you prove the information of Life is organic physiology I would consider atheism, till then beyond physiology there is a dimension in the Everlasting I hope to become a part of.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Here is the truth. We hope there is a heaven but we don't know. Many believe because they want to believe. No science to faith. And it's cool to believe and hope there is a god and more after we die.

As long as it's cool to not believe. So what if someone doesn't believe? Does it make them a bad person? Are they going to hell because they don't believe? Would you chop their head off? The answers depend on which theist you ask.

Interesting Americans  would rather vote for a pot smokers or cheaters than atheists.

I can't help believe this is holding us back as a species. As much good as it does a lie is wrong and better to know the truth?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.



No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make claims such as "*Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon. By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is self evident.  Can you name any other Civilization which has done more for humanity than Western Civilization?  Can you name any institution that has played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...

The best of all the worst!???? Compared to every other uncivilized society before the Greeks invented democracy sure.

What I'm suggesting is we could have done so much better. For the hundreds of years of Western civilizations rule we've had how much war, povery and crime. Maybe if we weren't being duped our citizen wouldn't be such sheep.

All that separates us from the apes is 1%. What if we started teaching our children calculus and quantum physics and evolution and biology instead of stories from the bible. Maybe we'd be off this planet already. At least 1000 years maybe 5000 is how far back religion has held us. Scotty beam me up.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Based on your logic, slavery should also be a force for good. Which is understandable, based on the amount of slaves Christianity has created.



Slavery has existed since the beginning of mankind.  Most of it was indentured servitude, not forced slavery.  You act like this was a Christian invention.  I suggest you do some research into just how many slaves were brought to America compared to the rest of the world.  I believe it was something like 6%.  They were brought here by the British.  It was a British institution not a Christian institution.  The reason we have race problem today is because back in the 17th century (maybe 18th) a British official wrote a law to prevent mixing of races which spread throughout the colonies.  The rest of the world did not do this and allowed the races to mix. 

The Greeks justified forced slavery because they believed they were morally superior.  The Romans believed that forced slavery was against the Law of Nature but justified it on the grounds of state supremacy.  Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but knew not how to end it at the time of our founding but wrote the Constitution is a way that would lead to its end.  I suspect that you have such a poor opinion of America and Christians that you won't believe this either.  Why?  Because it appears that you believe slavery existed because of Christians.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already provided the positive case for religion.  You are not objective enough to accept it.  You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without religion.  Yet history records nations which have been ruled by militant atheists like yourself quite differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You said you are objective...
> 
> So tell me negative things about religion. Otherwise, you're just spouting stuff that you were brainwashed with as a child. And still believe as an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no it doesn't mean that.  I'm not the one who is practicing critical theory.  That's what you are doing.  I don't define my beliefs by criticizing what I don't believe.  Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon.  By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good.  Do you believe that Western Civilization has not been a force for good?  In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.  The logical conclusion of your argument is that religion should be banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the history of Western Civilization there have been many bad things that man has done, I don't need to itemize them to know that the overall benefit has been good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a rather pathetic statement ... how else could a christian characterize their religion.
> 
> with his trumpet blaring ...
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you can tell me about your beliefs of God then.  How's that?  Can you share with me what you believe about God?  Tell me if you believe God is good or bad?  Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Can you tell me anything at all about your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me, personally, I believe in good. I don't need a supernatural being to tell me how to be good, or why I'm doing it.
> 
> Maybe there is something out there that we don't understand yet, and there is some sort of cosmic intelligence. But it really doesn't matter to me. It's not going to change who I am, nor how I am going to treat others, nor how I'm going to treat the world. Infinite possibilities are out there. If it's meant to be that I find out, well great! If not, it doesn't change who I am. I don't need a "god".
> 
> And, if I am good in my life, and there REALLY is a OBG just like you believe, and He doesn't like me because I didn't believe in him and sends me to hell....
> 
> Well, then, I'd rather rule in hell, than have to kiss his sorry ass.
> 
> So, as I asked before... Why do you need a god?
Click to expand...

Because I understand that I am a rebel.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> What bad things have you done, that you need forgiveness for in order to feel good about yourself?
> 
> Because likely, that's what it's all about. You've been bad, and since God will forgive you after a few prayers, you can feel good about yourself and start again. Until the next time you do something bad, and then you say a few "Hail Mary's" again, confess to some creepy priest in a box... and then start over again.
> 
> Christianity allows you to keep committing evil, get forgiven, and do it again!
> 
> As long as you ask for forgiveness on a regular basis, you can keep doing all the evils you want. And feel good and righteous about it at the same time!
> 
> People like me, we don't do evils. I don't have a guilty conscience. I don't need some imaginary being to forgive me. I don't need a "God".


Confession, forgiveness, thankfulness and dying to self all have practical applications which bring peace, happiness and objectivity.  What good has come from your atheism?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> What bad things have you done, that you need forgiveness for in order to feel good about yourself?
> 
> Because likely, that's what it's all about. You've been bad, and since God will forgive you after a few prayers, you can feel good about yourself and start again. Until the next time you do something bad, and then you say a few "Hail Mary's" again, confess to some creepy priest in a box... and then start over again.
> 
> Christianity allows you to keep committing evil, get forgiven, and do it again!
> 
> As long as you ask for forgiveness on a regular basis, you can keep doing all the evils you want. And feel good and righteous about it at the same time!
> 
> People like me, we don't do evils. I don't have a guilty conscience. I don't need some imaginary being to forgive me. I don't need a "God".


Only a good man knows just how bad he is.  A bad man has no idea that he is bad.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make claims such as "*Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon. By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is self evident.  Can you name any other Civilization which has done more for humanity than Western Civilization?  Can you name any institution that has played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best of all the worst!???? Compared to every other uncivilized society before the Greeks invented democracy sure.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is we could have done so much better. For the hundreds of years of Western civilizations rule we've had how much war, povery and crime. Maybe if we weren't being duped our citizen wouldn't be such sheep.
> 
> All that separates us from the apes is 1%. What if we started teaching our children calculus and quantum physics and evolution and biology instead of stories from the bible. Maybe we'd be off this planet already. At least 1000 years maybe 5000 is how far back religion has held us. Scotty beam me up.
Click to expand...

So your argument is we should have done better?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> christian, this should be a good one for you, who is your alltime greatest christian leader of Western Civilization from the 4th century to present day ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you there are countless individuals through time who have honored religion in their lifetimes, all denominations.
> 
> 
> I am secular first religious second, for there to be an afterlife in the Everlasting much as you claim to be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> innocence, the unjust crucifixion from an earlier time in the 4th century was changed from a religion to a political statement and used by the unjust to manipulate the public conscious for their own personal gain - and is an expense for real religion. bing.
> 
> 
> when you prove the information of Life is organic physiology I would consider atheism, till then beyond physiology there is a dimension in the Everlasting I hope to become a part of.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a humanist.  Big surprise, lol.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> You are a humanist. Big surprise, lol.



and you're an XXX, no surprise at all ... what's wrong with you.

_
*Humanism* is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality._

_*
that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings ...

*_
the above version "*the value and agency of human beings*" - is straight out of the christian bible, genesis - not at all the Garden of the Almighty and where that book should first be edited ....

.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make claims such as "*Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon. By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is self evident.  Can you name any other Civilization which has done more for humanity than Western Civilization?  Can you name any institution that has played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best of all the worst!???? Compared to every other uncivilized society before the Greeks invented democracy sure.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is we could have done so much better. For the hundreds of years of Western civilizations rule we've had how much war, povery and crime. Maybe if we weren't being duped our citizen wouldn't be such sheep.
> 
> All that separates us from the apes is 1%. What if we started teaching our children calculus and quantum physics and evolution and biology instead of stories from the bible. Maybe we'd be off this planet already. At least 1000 years maybe 5000 is how far back religion has held us. Scotty beam me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your argument is we should have done better?
Click to expand...

And could have. During the Aristotle days before they invented Christianity the elites of Greek society who ruled (remember only Greek men could vote) learned all the math and science that today we know but back then that knowledge was not given to the masses. Instead they pushed religion capitalism and slavery. They chose to keep the masses uninformed. It's true


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you?  Things like that.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share with me what you believe about God? Tell me if you believe God is good or bad? Tell me if you believe God works through you? Things like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you there are countless individuals through time who have honored religion in their lifetimes, all denominations.
> 
> 
> I am secular first religious second, for there to be an afterlife in the Everlasting much as you claim to be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> innocence, the unjust crucifixion from an earlier time in the 4th century was changed from a religion to a political statement and used by the unjust to manipulate the public conscious for their own personal gain - and is an expense for real religion. bing.
> 
> 
> when you prove the information of Life is organic physiology I would consider atheism, till then beyond physiology there is a dimension in the Everlasting I hope to become a part of.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a humanist.  Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist. Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you're an XXX, no surprise at all ... what's wrong with you.
> 
> _
> *Humanism* is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality._
> 
> _*
> that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings ...
> 
> *_
> the above version "*the value and agency of human beings*" - is straight out of the christian bible, genesis - not at all the Garden of the Almighty and where that book should first be edited ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Communism is naturalized humanism.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make claims such as "*Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon. By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is self evident.  Can you name any other Civilization which has done more for humanity than Western Civilization?  Can you name any institution that has played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best of all the worst!???? Compared to every other uncivilized society before the Greeks invented democracy sure.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is we could have done so much better. For the hundreds of years of Western civilizations rule we've had how much war, povery and crime. Maybe if we weren't being duped our citizen wouldn't be such sheep.
> 
> All that separates us from the apes is 1%. What if we started teaching our children calculus and quantum physics and evolution and biology instead of stories from the bible. Maybe we'd be off this planet already. At least 1000 years maybe 5000 is how far back religion has held us. Scotty beam me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your argument is we should have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And could have. During the Aristotle days before they invented Christianity the elites of Greek society who ruled (remember only Greek men could vote) learned all the math and science that today we know but back then that knowledge was not given to the masses. Instead they pushed religion capitalism and slavery. They chose to keep the masses uninformed. It's true
Click to expand...

I see.  Could you have done better?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> ok then christian, tell us your alltime christian hero and why you admire them so .... Western Civilization.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you there are countless individuals through time who have honored religion in their lifetimes, all denominations.
> 
> 
> I am secular first religious second, for there to be an afterlife in the Everlasting much as you claim to be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> innocence, the unjust crucifixion from an earlier time in the 4th century was changed from a religion to a political statement and used by the unjust to manipulate the public conscious for their own personal gain - and is an expense for real religion. bing.
> 
> 
> when you prove the information of Life is organic physiology I would consider atheism, till then beyond physiology there is a dimension in the Everlasting I hope to become a part of.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a humanist.  Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist. Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you're an XXX, no surprise at all ... what's wrong with you.
> 
> _
> *Humanism* is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality._
> 
> _*
> that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings ...
> 
> *_
> the above version "*the value and agency of human beings*" - is straight out of the christian bible, genesis - not at all the Garden of the Almighty and where that book should first be edited ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
Click to expand...

Are you a commy breezewood? Lol


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make claims such as "*Christianity is the foundation that Western Civilization was laid upon. By any objective measure Western Civilization has been a force for good, thus, Christianity has been a force for good*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is self evident.  Can you name any other Civilization which has done more for humanity than Western Civilization?  Can you name any institution that has played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best of all the worst!???? Compared to every other uncivilized society before the Greeks invented democracy sure.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is we could have done so much better. For the hundreds of years of Western civilizations rule we've had how much war, povery and crime. Maybe if we weren't being duped our citizen wouldn't be such sheep.
> 
> All that separates us from the apes is 1%. What if we started teaching our children calculus and quantum physics and evolution and biology instead of stories from the bible. Maybe we'd be off this planet already. At least 1000 years maybe 5000 is how far back religion has held us. Scotty beam me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your argument is we should have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And could have. During the Aristotle days before they invented Christianity the elites of Greek society who ruled (remember only Greek men could vote) learned all the math and science that today we know but back then that knowledge was not given to the masses. Instead they pushed religion capitalism and slavery. They chose to keep the masses uninformed. It's true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see.  Could you have done better?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I wish I was Superman I would first pass a law that no CEO can make more than 80 times more than their lowest paid employees. If they get a raise every worker gets a raise too.

Break this rule and I fly you one mile up and drop you


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mother Theresa? Is your point that it's very hard to think of one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you there are countless individuals through time who have honored religion in their lifetimes, all denominations.
> 
> 
> I am secular first religious second, for there to be an afterlife in the Everlasting much as you claim to be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> innocence, the unjust crucifixion from an earlier time in the 4th century was changed from a religion to a political statement and used by the unjust to manipulate the public conscious for their own personal gain - and is an expense for real religion. bing.
> 
> 
> when you prove the information of Life is organic physiology I would consider atheism, till then beyond physiology there is a dimension in the Everlasting I hope to become a part of.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a humanist.  Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist. Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you're an XXX, no surprise at all ... what's wrong with you.
> 
> _
> *Humanism* is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality._
> 
> _*
> that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings ...
> 
> *_
> the above version "*the value and agency of human beings*" - is straight out of the christian bible, genesis - not at all the Garden of the Almighty and where that book should first be edited ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
Click to expand...

.


sealybobo said:


> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol




the way bing thinks whoever is would burn in hell or he has a right through his religion to hate something as benign as communism ... and hates everything that isn't christian to the extent to do it harm - a militant.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I agree with you there are countless individuals through time who have honored religion in their lifetimes, all denominations.
> 
> 
> I am secular first religious second, for there to be an afterlife in the Everlasting much as you claim to be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> innocence, the unjust crucifixion from an earlier time in the 4th century was changed from a religion to a political statement and used by the unjust to manipulate the public conscious for their own personal gain - and is an expense for real religion. bing.
> 
> 
> when you prove the information of Life is organic physiology I would consider atheism, till then beyond physiology there is a dimension in the Everlasting I hope to become a part of.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist.  Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist. Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you're an XXX, no surprise at all ... what's wrong with you.
> 
> _
> *Humanism* is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality._
> 
> _*
> that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings ...
> 
> *_
> the above version "*the value and agency of human beings*" - is straight out of the christian bible, genesis - not at all the Garden of the Almighty and where that book should first be edited ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the way bing thinks whoever is would burn in hell or he has a right through his religion to hate something as benign as communism ... and hates everything that isn't christian to the extent to do it harm - a militant.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I don't believe people will burn in hell.  That is you creating a strawman argument.

History shows that communism is naturalized humanism


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is self evident.  Can you name any other Civilization which has done more for humanity than Western Civilization?  Can you name any institution that has played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church?
> 
> 
> 
> The best of all the worst!???? Compared to every other uncivilized society before the Greeks invented democracy sure.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is we could have done so much better. For the hundreds of years of Western civilizations rule we've had how much war, povery and crime. Maybe if we weren't being duped our citizen wouldn't be such sheep.
> 
> All that separates us from the apes is 1%. What if we started teaching our children calculus and quantum physics and evolution and biology instead of stories from the bible. Maybe we'd be off this planet already. At least 1000 years maybe 5000 is how far back religion has held us. Scotty beam me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your argument is we should have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And could have. During the Aristotle days before they invented Christianity the elites of Greek society who ruled (remember only Greek men could vote) learned all the math and science that today we know but back then that knowledge was not given to the masses. Instead they pushed religion capitalism and slavery. They chose to keep the masses uninformed. It's true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see.  Could you have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. I wish I was Superman I would first pass a law that no CEO can make more than 80 times more than their lowest paid employees. If they get a raise every worker gets a raise too.
> 
> Break this rule and I fly you one mile up and drop you
Click to expand...

So then by your logic, you are not good because you could have been better.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I agree with you there are countless individuals through time who have honored religion in their lifetimes, all denominations.
> 
> 
> I am secular first religious second, for there to be an afterlife in the Everlasting much as you claim to be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> innocence, the unjust crucifixion from an earlier time in the 4th century was changed from a religion to a political statement and used by the unjust to manipulate the public conscious for their own personal gain - and is an expense for real religion. bing.
> 
> 
> when you prove the information of Life is organic physiology I would consider atheism, till then beyond physiology there is a dimension in the Everlasting I hope to become a part of.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist.  Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist. Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you're an XXX, no surprise at all ... what's wrong with you.
> 
> _
> *Humanism* is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality._
> 
> _*
> that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings ...
> 
> *_
> the above version "*the value and agency of human beings*" - is straight out of the christian bible, genesis - not at all the Garden of the Almighty and where that book should first be edited ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the way bing thinks whoever is would burn in hell or he has a right through his religion to hate something as benign as communism ... and hates everything that isn't christian to the extent to do it harm - a militant.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I heard Americans equate capitalism with democracy and democracy with religion.

Capitalism is just another corruptable ism. And that does alarm me how easily people are riled up with communism and socialism. Oh evil! Meanwhile trumps giving Putin a hand job and China's killing it.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist.  Big surprise, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist. Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you're an XXX, no surprise at all ... what's wrong with you.
> 
> _
> *Humanism* is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality._
> 
> _*
> that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings ...
> 
> *_
> the above version "*the value and agency of human beings*" - is straight out of the christian bible, genesis - not at all the Garden of the Almighty and where that book should first be edited ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the way bing thinks whoever is would burn in hell or he has a right through his religion to hate something as benign as communism ... and hates everything that isn't christian to the extent to do it harm - a militant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe people will burn in hell.  That is you creating a strawman argument.
> 
> History shows that communism is naturalized humanism
Click to expand...

Well no one wants communism so why bring it up?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best of all the worst!???? Compared to every other uncivilized society before the Greeks invented democracy sure.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is we could have done so much better. For the hundreds of years of Western civilizations rule we've had how much war, povery and crime. Maybe if we weren't being duped our citizen wouldn't be such sheep.
> 
> All that separates us from the apes is 1%. What if we started teaching our children calculus and quantum physics and evolution and biology instead of stories from the bible. Maybe we'd be off this planet already. At least 1000 years maybe 5000 is how far back religion has held us. Scotty beam me up.
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is we should have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And could have. During the Aristotle days before they invented Christianity the elites of Greek society who ruled (remember only Greek men could vote) learned all the math and science that today we know but back then that knowledge was not given to the masses. Instead they pushed religion capitalism and slavery. They chose to keep the masses uninformed. It's true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see.  Could you have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. I wish I was Superman I would first pass a law that no CEO can make more than 80 times more than their lowest paid employees. If they get a raise every worker gets a raise too.
> 
> Break this rule and I fly you one mile up and drop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then by your logic, you are not good because you could have been better.
Click to expand...

Even good men are capable of evil and even evil men love their moms and daughters and country


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is we should have done better?
> 
> 
> 
> And could have. During the Aristotle days before they invented Christianity the elites of Greek society who ruled (remember only Greek men could vote) learned all the math and science that today we know but back then that knowledge was not given to the masses. Instead they pushed religion capitalism and slavery. They chose to keep the masses uninformed. It's true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see.  Could you have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. I wish I was Superman I would first pass a law that no CEO can make more than 80 times more than their lowest paid employees. If they get a raise every worker gets a raise too.
> 
> Break this rule and I fly you one mile up and drop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then by your logic, you are not good because you could have been better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even good men are capable of evil and even evil men love their moms and daughters and country
Click to expand...

Then by your logic, even good countries are capable of evil, right?  I couldn't agree more by the way.  What makes them good is the overall weight of their actions; both good and bad; not that they could have been more good.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> and you're an XXX, no surprise at all ... what's wrong with you.
> 
> _
> *Humanism* is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality._
> 
> _*
> that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings ...
> 
> *_
> the above version "*the value and agency of human beings*" - is straight out of the christian bible, genesis - not at all the Garden of the Almighty and where that book should first be edited ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the way bing thinks whoever is would burn in hell or he has a right through his religion to hate something as benign as communism ... and hates everything that isn't christian to the extent to do it harm - a militant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe people will burn in hell.  That is you creating a strawman argument.
> 
> History shows that communism is naturalized humanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well no one wants communism so why bring it up?
Click to expand...

Because it is the natural progression of humanism.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best of all the worst!???? Compared to every other uncivilized society before the Greeks invented democracy sure.
> 
> What I'm suggesting is we could have done so much better. For the hundreds of years of Western civilizations rule we've had how much war, povery and crime. Maybe if we weren't being duped our citizen wouldn't be such sheep.
> 
> All that separates us from the apes is 1%. What if we started teaching our children calculus and quantum physics and evolution and biology instead of stories from the bible. Maybe we'd be off this planet already. At least 1000 years maybe 5000 is how far back religion has held us. Scotty beam me up.
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is we should have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And could have. During the Aristotle days before they invented Christianity the elites of Greek society who ruled (remember only Greek men could vote) learned all the math and science that today we know but back then that knowledge was not given to the masses. Instead they pushed religion capitalism and slavery. They chose to keep the masses uninformed. It's true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see.  Could you have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. I wish I was Superman I would first pass a law that no CEO can make more than 80 times more than their lowest paid employees. If they get a raise every worker gets a raise too.
> 
> Break this rule and I fly you one mile up and drop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then by your logic, you are not good because you could have been better.
Click to expand...

I notice how you naturally think of communism when we talk about atheism. And you think "Western" civilization is best and of course you associate America with christians. I think subconsciously you falsely or wronly equate atheism with communism. No connection.

When I was a Christian I associated atheism with satanism. Never realized they are completely different. You couldn't call yourself an atheist if you believe in Satan.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist.  Big surprise, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a humanist. Big surprise, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you're an XXX, no surprise at all ... what's wrong with you.
> 
> _
> *Humanism* is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality._
> 
> _*
> that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings ...
> 
> *_
> the above version "*the value and agency of human beings*" - is straight out of the christian bible, genesis - not at all the Garden of the Almighty and where that book should first be edited ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the way bing thinks whoever is would burn in hell or he has a right through his religion to hate something as benign as communism ... and hates everything that isn't christian to the extent to do it harm - a militant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard Americans equate capitalism with democracy and democracy with religion.
> 
> Capitalism is just another corruptable ism. And that does alarm me how easily people are riled up with communism and socialism. Oh evil! Meanwhile trumps giving Putin a hand job and China's killing it.
Click to expand...

You heard wrong.  Failures of capitalism and socialism are failures of morality.  When capitalism fails, people lose money.  When socialism fails, people die.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is we should have done better?
> 
> 
> 
> And could have. During the Aristotle days before they invented Christianity the elites of Greek society who ruled (remember only Greek men could vote) learned all the math and science that today we know but back then that knowledge was not given to the masses. Instead they pushed religion capitalism and slavery. They chose to keep the masses uninformed. It's true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see.  Could you have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. I wish I was Superman I would first pass a law that no CEO can make more than 80 times more than their lowest paid employees. If they get a raise every worker gets a raise too.
> 
> Break this rule and I fly you one mile up and drop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then by your logic, you are not good because you could have been better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice how you naturally think of communism when we talk about atheism. And you think "Western" civilization is best and of course you associate America with christians. I think subconsciously you falsely or wronly equate atheism with communism. No connection.
> 
> When I was a Christian I associated atheism with satanism. Never realized they are completely different. You couldn't call yourself an atheist if you believe in Satan.
Click to expand...


"...As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development..."  Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the way bing thinks whoever is would burn in hell or he has a right through his religion to hate something as benign as communism ... and hates everything that isn't christian to the extent to do it harm - a militant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe people will burn in hell.  That is you creating a strawman argument.
> 
> History shows that communism is naturalized humanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well no one wants communism so why bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is the natural progression of humanism.
Click to expand...

I don't get that. Why? And if that's true then there lies the flaw with humanism. Or maybe communism like every other ism while not perfect makes some good points but isn't the end all be all because if it were Wed all be humanists.

And explain why you think one goes with the other


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a commy breezewood? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the way bing thinks whoever is would burn in hell or he has a right through his religion to hate something as benign as communism ... and hates everything that isn't christian to the extent to do it harm - a militant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe people will burn in hell.  That is you creating a strawman argument.
> 
> History shows that communism is naturalized humanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well no one wants communism so why bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is the natural progression of humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get that. Why? And if that's true then there lies the flaw with humanism. Or maybe communism like every other ism while not perfect makes some good points but isn't the end all be all because if it were Wed all be humanists.
> 
> And explain why you think one goes with the other
Click to expand...

See post #2951 and...

"...The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism..."  Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And could have. During the Aristotle days before they invented Christianity the elites of Greek society who ruled (remember only Greek men could vote) learned all the math and science that today we know but back then that knowledge was not given to the masses. Instead they pushed religion capitalism and slavery. They chose to keep the masses uninformed. It's true
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  Could you have done better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. I wish I was Superman I would first pass a law that no CEO can make more than 80 times more than their lowest paid employees. If they get a raise every worker gets a raise too.
> 
> Break this rule and I fly you one mile up and drop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then by your logic, you are not good because you could have been better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice how you naturally think of communism when we talk about atheism. And you think "Western" civilization is best and of course you associate America with christians. I think subconsciously you falsely or wronly equate atheism with communism. No connection.
> 
> When I was a Christian I associated atheism with satanism. Never realized they are completely different. You couldn't call yourself an atheist if you believe in Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."
> 
> This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development..."  Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address
Click to expand...

We are still such a young new species just now learning our place in the universe. And sadly not that much different than people 20,000 years ago. What did they want? To be free, happy, well fed, valued, loved, appreciated and respected. What happens after you die doesn't matter to me and what you believe shouldn't affect me


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  Could you have done better?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. I wish I was Superman I would first pass a law that no CEO can make more than 80 times more than their lowest paid employees. If they get a raise every worker gets a raise too.
> 
> Break this rule and I fly you one mile up and drop you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then by your logic, you are not good because you could have been better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice how you naturally think of communism when we talk about atheism. And you think "Western" civilization is best and of course you associate America with christians. I think subconsciously you falsely or wronly equate atheism with communism. No connection.
> 
> When I was a Christian I associated atheism with satanism. Never realized they are completely different. You couldn't call yourself an atheist if you believe in Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."
> 
> This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development..."  Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still such a young new species just now learning our place in the universe. And sadly not that much different than people 20,000 years ago. What did they want? To be free, happy, well fed, valued, loved, appreciated and respected. What happens after you die doesn't matter to me and what you believe shouldn't affect me
Click to expand...

It shouldn't, but your actions say it does.  

Those are good goals.  Do you believe that Hitler appreciated Himler?  Better goals would be to do the right thing, the right way for the right reasons and when you fail, to not rationalize your failure but to be accountable and learn from them.  That's Christianity in a nutshell.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. I wish I was Superman I would first pass a law that no CEO can make more than 80 times more than their lowest paid employees. If they get a raise every worker gets a raise too.
> 
> Break this rule and I fly you one mile up and drop you
> 
> 
> 
> So then by your logic, you are not good because you could have been better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice how you naturally think of communism when we talk about atheism. And you think "Western" civilization is best and of course you associate America with christians. I think subconsciously you falsely or wronly equate atheism with communism. No connection.
> 
> When I was a Christian I associated atheism with satanism. Never realized they are completely different. You couldn't call yourself an atheist if you believe in Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."
> 
> This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development..."  Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still such a young new species just now learning our place in the universe. And sadly not that much different than people 20,000 years ago. What did they want? To be free, happy, well fed, valued, loved, appreciated and respected. What happens after you die doesn't matter to me and what you believe shouldn't affect me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It shouldn't, but your actions say it does.
> 
> Those are good goals.  Do you believe that Hitler appreciated Himler?  Better goals would be to do the right thing, the right way for the right reasons and when you fail, to not rationalize your failure but to be accountable and learn from them.  That's Christianity in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> That's Christianity in a nutshell.



that is not christianity ....

_*
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".*_


after the 4th century the above is christianity.




ding said:


> What makes them good is the overall weight of their actions; both good and bad; not that they could have been more good.



according to 4th century christianity the above has no bearing whatsoever.


the religion of the Almighty, The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the determining factor for the fate of humanity and is exclusive of any other conditions than the specific religion itself, Noah's parable. in the end there will be a Triumph of one or the other, that alone will receive the Final Judgement.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then by your logic, you are not good because you could have been better.
> 
> 
> 
> I notice how you naturally think of communism when we talk about atheism. And you think "Western" civilization is best and of course you associate America with christians. I think subconsciously you falsely or wronly equate atheism with communism. No connection.
> 
> When I was a Christian I associated atheism with satanism. Never realized they are completely different. You couldn't call yourself an atheist if you believe in Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."
> 
> This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development..."  Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still such a young new species just now learning our place in the universe. And sadly not that much different than people 20,000 years ago. What did they want? To be free, happy, well fed, valued, loved, appreciated and respected. What happens after you die doesn't matter to me and what you believe shouldn't affect me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It shouldn't, but your actions say it does.
> 
> Those are good goals.  Do you believe that Hitler appreciated Himler?  Better goals would be to do the right thing, the right way for the right reasons and when you fail, to not rationalize your failure but to be accountable and learn from them.  That's Christianity in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's Christianity in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is not christianity ....
> 
> _*
> "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".*_
> 
> 
> after the 4th century the above is christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes them good is the overall weight of their actions; both good and bad; not that they could have been more good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> according to 4th century christianity the above has no bearing whatsoever.
> 
> 
> the religion of the Almighty, The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the determining factor for the fate of humanity and is exclusive of any other conditions than the specific religion itself, Noah's parable. in the end there will be a Triumph of one or the other, that alone will receive the Final Judgement.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Then you best get busy.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice how you naturally think of communism when we talk about atheism. And you think "Western" civilization is best and of course you associate America with christians. I think subconsciously you falsely or wronly equate atheism with communism. No connection.
> 
> When I was a Christian I associated atheism with satanism. Never realized they are completely different. You couldn't call yourself an atheist if you believe in Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."
> 
> This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development..."  Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are still such a young new species just now learning our place in the universe. And sadly not that much different than people 20,000 years ago. What did they want? To be free, happy, well fed, valued, loved, appreciated and respected. What happens after you die doesn't matter to me and what you believe shouldn't affect me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It shouldn't, but your actions say it does.
> 
> Those are good goals.  Do you believe that Hitler appreciated Himler?  Better goals would be to do the right thing, the right way for the right reasons and when you fail, to not rationalize your failure but to be accountable and learn from them.  That's Christianity in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's Christianity in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is not christianity ....
> 
> _*
> "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".*_
> 
> 
> after the 4th century the above is christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes them good is the overall weight of their actions; both good and bad; not that they could have been more good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> according to 4th century christianity the above has no bearing whatsoever.
> 
> 
> the religion of the Almighty, The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the determining factor for the fate of humanity and is exclusive of any other conditions than the specific religion itself, Noah's parable. in the end there will be a Triumph of one or the other, that alone will receive the Final Judgement.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you best get busy.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Then you best get busy.



busy at what, militant.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."
> 
> This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development..."  Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address
> 
> 
> 
> We are still such a young new species just now learning our place in the universe. And sadly not that much different than people 20,000 years ago. What did they want? To be free, happy, well fed, valued, loved, appreciated and respected. What happens after you die doesn't matter to me and what you believe shouldn't affect me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It shouldn't, but your actions say it does.
> 
> Those are good goals.  Do you believe that Hitler appreciated Himler?  Better goals would be to do the right thing, the right way for the right reasons and when you fail, to not rationalize your failure but to be accountable and learn from them.  That's Christianity in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's Christianity in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is not christianity ....
> 
> _*
> "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".*_
> 
> 
> after the 4th century the above is christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes them good is the overall weight of their actions; both good and bad; not that they could have been more good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> according to 4th century christianity the above has no bearing whatsoever.
> 
> 
> the religion of the Almighty, The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the determining factor for the fate of humanity and is exclusive of any other conditions than the specific religion itself, Noah's parable. in the end there will be a Triumph of one or the other, that alone will receive the Final Judgement.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you best get busy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you best get busy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> busy at what, militant.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Winning converts.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are still such a young new species just now learning our place in the universe. And sadly not that much different than people 20,000 years ago. What did they want? To be free, happy, well fed, valued, loved, appreciated and respected. What happens after you die doesn't matter to me and what you believe shouldn't affect me
> 
> 
> 
> It shouldn't, but your actions say it does.
> 
> Those are good goals.  Do you believe that Hitler appreciated Himler?  Better goals would be to do the right thing, the right way for the right reasons and when you fail, to not rationalize your failure but to be accountable and learn from them.  That's Christianity in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's Christianity in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is not christianity ....
> 
> _*
> "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".*_
> 
> 
> after the 4th century the above is christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes them good is the overall weight of their actions; both good and bad; not that they could have been more good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> according to 4th century christianity the above has no bearing whatsoever.
> 
> 
> the religion of the Almighty, The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the determining factor for the fate of humanity and is exclusive of any other conditions than the specific religion itself, Noah's parable. in the end there will be a Triumph of one or the other, that alone will receive the Final Judgement.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you best get busy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you best get busy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> busy at what, militant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winning converts.
Click to expand...

. 
the spoken religion of Antiquity will always exist for as long as there is an Everlasting.

.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said you are being objective. Therefore you must practice critical theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That's not correct.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to justify what you do believe without ever critically examining what you do believe.  two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Critical thinking is critically examining what you do believe to test its validity.
Click to expand...


Totally wrong dude. Again, you have it upside-down. I sense a trend?


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
Click to expand...


What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...

Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.

The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?

And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your logic, slavery should also be a force for good. Which is understandable, based on the amount of slaves Christianity has created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed since the beginning of mankind.  Most of it was indentured servitude, not forced slavery.  You act like this was a Christian invention.  I suggest you do some research into just how many slaves were brought to America compared to the rest of the world.  I believe it was something like 6%.  They were brought here by the British.  It was a British institution not a Christian institution.  The reason we have race problem today is because back in the 17th century (maybe 18th) a British official wrote a law to prevent mixing of races which spread throughout the colonies.  The rest of the world did not do this and allowed the races to mix.
> 
> The Greeks justified forced slavery because they believed they were morally superior.  The Romans believed that forced slavery was against the Law of Nature but justified it on the grounds of state supremacy.  Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but knew not how to end it at the time of our founding but wrote the Constitution is a way that would lead to its end.  I suspect that you have such a poor opinion of America and Christians that you won't believe this either.  Why?  Because it appears that you believe slavery existed because of Christians.
Click to expand...


Slavery was a religious invention, not necessarily a Christian one. But the Christians took full reigns on that one once they got in power, and have been promoting it for about 2000 years.

Which is totally against what the idea of Jesus is about. 

But hey, why bother with trivial things like that? 

I believe in Jesus as a symbol for goodness. Christianity has not followed the goodness that he represented. And, along with other religions, they have done the most cruel, sickening, and inhumane acts in the history of the world. 

That is not what Jesus was about... I hope you can embrace the idea of goodness, without need for a ruler with a whip and financial interests. 

I wish you, and everyone here, a Merry Christmas!


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
Click to expand...

I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.

Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
Click to expand...

This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said you are being objective. Therefore you must practice critical theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That's not correct.  Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to justify what you do believe without ever critically examining what you do believe.  two major flaws which are common to all critical theory arguments; 1. your analysis was made in a vacuum; 2. what you did analyze lacked objectivity.
> 
> Critical thinking is critically examining what you do believe to test its validity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally wrong dude. Again, you have it upside-down. I sense a trend?
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that critical theory is not the practice of criticizing everything you don't believe to justify what you do believe?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your logic, slavery should also be a force for good. Which is understandable, based on the amount of slaves Christianity has created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed since the beginning of mankind.  Most of it was indentured servitude, not forced slavery.  You act like this was a Christian invention.  I suggest you do some research into just how many slaves were brought to America compared to the rest of the world.  I believe it was something like 6%.  They were brought here by the British.  It was a British institution not a Christian institution.  The reason we have race problem today is because back in the 17th century (maybe 18th) a British official wrote a law to prevent mixing of races which spread throughout the colonies.  The rest of the world did not do this and allowed the races to mix.
> 
> The Greeks justified forced slavery because they believed they were morally superior.  The Romans believed that forced slavery was against the Law of Nature but justified it on the grounds of state supremacy.  Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but knew not how to end it at the time of our founding but wrote the Constitution is a way that would lead to its end.  I suspect that you have such a poor opinion of America and Christians that you won't believe this either.  Why?  Because it appears that you believe slavery existed because of Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a religious invention, not necessarily a Christian one. But the Christians took full reigns on that one once they got in power, and have been promoting it for about 2000 years.
> 
> Which is totally against what the idea of Jesus is about.
> 
> But hey, why bother with trivial things like that?
> 
> I believe in Jesus as a symbol for goodness. Christianity has not followed the goodness that he represented. And, along with other religions, they have done the most cruel, sickening, and inhumane acts in the history of the world.
> 
> That is not what Jesus was about... I hope you can embrace the idea of goodness, without need for a ruler with a whip and financial interests.
> 
> I wish you, and everyone here, a Merry Christmas!
Click to expand...

The History of Slavery


----------



## Divine Wind

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....


False premise since science is a method of studying the Natural Universe, not anything outside of it.  Ergo, science does not hold the answer to *all* questions, just a means to find answers within our Universe.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
Click to expand...

No.  That's not what I was saying.


----------



## Divine Wind

RWS said:


> ....And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...


If "goodness" is an evolutionary survival trait, then please give examples of it among other species.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy.











how any worse could socialism be than what your religion, christianity has already proven capable of ...

you are simply afraid of life without your book ... to control what otherwise is beyond your persuasion, free Spirits without the shackles of your false religion, promiscuity.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

Divine.Wind said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> 
> 
> If "goodness" is an evolutionary survival trait, then please give examples of it among other species.
Click to expand...

.


Divine.Wind said:


> If "goodness" is an evolutionary survival trait, then please give examples of it among other species.









all living beings are beholden to the Almighty as they will perish otherwise, the same for humanity.

.


----------



## Divine Wind

BreezeWood said:


> *how any worse could socialism* be than what your religion, christianity has already proven capable of ...
> 
> you are simply afraid of life without your book ... to control what otherwise is beyond your persuasion, free Spirits without the shackles of your false religion, promiscuity.
> 
> .


Stalin purged about 39 million of his own citizens.  Mao up to twice as many. 

Still, mankind is his own worst enemy.  Christians and Socialists throwing rocks at each other with each claiming the other is worse reminds me of an ape fighting its own image.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how any worse could socialism be than what your religion, christianity has already proven capable of ...
> 
> you are simply afraid of life without your book ... to control what otherwise is beyond your persuasion, free Spirits without the shackles of your false religion, promiscuity.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

lol, are you arguing for socialism?  Don't be shy about it.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.


Good and evil is a religious distinction.  For atheists, it's all relative.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
Click to expand...

Ayn Rand was a capitalist and atheist. Capitalism doesn't need a God.

But Americans do equated capitalism to democracy and democracy with christianity


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Good and evil is a religious distinction.  For atheists, it's all relative.
Click to expand...

So?


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> 
> 
> If "goodness" is an evolutionary survival trait, then please give examples of it among other species.
Click to expand...

Dolphins have saved humans from shark attack


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> ....But Americans do equated capitalism to democracy and democracy with christianity


Disagreed with your broad brush view of Americans.

Capitalism is an economic system which does work well with democracies and republics.  Our democracy/republic does, for obvious reasons, have ties to Christianity since many of our Founders were Christians, but democracy isn't necessarily Christian.  Look at Turkey.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Dolphins have saved humans from shark attack


While dolphins have, indeed, attacked sharks that were attacking humans, to claim they were doing it to "save" the human is pure anthropomorphism.  It comes from, as the link below states, the whackadoodle fringe.  

Dolphins Saved a Swimmer From a Shark! A Rare Combination of Three Marine Myths.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Good and evil is a religious distinction.  For atheists, it's all relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
Click to expand...

Aren't you an atheist?


----------



## BreezeWood

Divine.Wind said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *how any worse could socialism* be than what your religion, christianity has already proven capable of ...
> 
> you are simply afraid of life without your book ... to control what otherwise is beyond your persuasion, free Spirits without the shackles of your false religion, promiscuity.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin purged about 39 million of his own citizens.  Mao up to twice as many.
> 
> Still, mankind is his own worst enemy.  Christians and Socialists throwing rocks at each other with each claiming the other is worse reminds me of an ape fighting its own image.
Click to expand...

.


Divine.Wind said:


> Still, mankind is his own worst enemy.




certainly to date no recorded religion has intervened to make it otherwise or if you blame mankind for the faults of a few individuals what is your solution, more of the same.

.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
Click to expand...


As I already said, Socialism is a religion that is very closely related to two Christian religions, one of which we have a holiday for, minus the "god". The goal of socialism is to get to Communism, rather than Heaven. And of course, the goal is unattainable, but people are forced to strive and obey their rulers regardless, and the rulers keep making more money and power, while never letting the truth be known.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your logic, slavery should also be a force for good. Which is understandable, based on the amount of slaves Christianity has created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed since the beginning of mankind.  Most of it was indentured servitude, not forced slavery.  You act like this was a Christian invention.  I suggest you do some research into just how many slaves were brought to America compared to the rest of the world.  I believe it was something like 6%.  They were brought here by the British.  It was a British institution not a Christian institution.  The reason we have race problem today is because back in the 17th century (maybe 18th) a British official wrote a law to prevent mixing of races which spread throughout the colonies.  The rest of the world did not do this and allowed the races to mix.
> 
> The Greeks justified forced slavery because they believed they were morally superior.  The Romans believed that forced slavery was against the Law of Nature but justified it on the grounds of state supremacy.  Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but knew not how to end it at the time of our founding but wrote the Constitution is a way that would lead to its end.  I suspect that you have such a poor opinion of America and Christians that you won't believe this either.  Why?  Because it appears that you believe slavery existed because of Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a religious invention, not necessarily a Christian one. But the Christians took full reigns on that one once they got in power, and have been promoting it for about 2000 years.
> 
> Which is totally against what the idea of Jesus is about.
> 
> But hey, why bother with trivial things like that?
> 
> I believe in Jesus as a symbol for goodness. Christianity has not followed the goodness that he represented. And, along with other religions, they have done the most cruel, sickening, and inhumane acts in the history of the world.
> 
> That is not what Jesus was about... I hope you can embrace the idea of goodness, without need for a ruler with a whip and financial interests.
> 
> I wish you, and everyone here, a Merry Christmas!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The History of Slavery
Click to expand...


Again, you paste something without even reading it. Maybe you're hoping that God makes a random link you provide helpful to your cause?

Because if you read a little lower, and down to the section about "The Pope", you will see it agrees with everything I've been saying....

From Ding's link: The History of Slavery

Read down to the point where you get to this:



> *The Pope*
> The 15th century Portuguese exploration of the African coast is commonly regarded as the harbinger of European colonialism. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" to hereditary slavery which legitimized slave trade under Catholic beliefs of that time. This approval of slavery was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455.
> 
> Below is a letter, which King Ferdinand sent along with Columbus on his second voyage to Haiti. It was to be communicated to the Taino/Arawak Indians.
> 
> *The letter:*
> In the name of King Ferdinand and Juana, his daughter, Queen of Castile and Leon, etc., conquerors of barbarian nations, we notify you as best we can that our Lord God Eternal created Heaven and earth and a man and woman from whom we all descend for all times and all over the world. In the 5,000 years since creation the multitude of these generations caused men to divide and establish kingdoms in various parts of the world, among whom God chose St. Peter as leader of mankind, regardless of their law, sect or belief. He seated St. Peter in Rome as the best place from which to rule the world but he allowed him to establish his seat in all parts of the world and rule all people, whether Christians, Moors, Jews, Gentiles or any other sect. He was named Pope, which means admirable and greatest father, governor of all men. Those who lived at that time obeyed St. Peter as Lord and superior King of the universe, and so did their descendants obey his successors and so on to the end of time.
> 
> The late Pope gave these islands and mainland of the ocean and the contents hereof to the above-mentioned King and Queen, as is certified in writing and you may see the documents if you should so desire. Therefore, Their Highnesses are lords and masters of this land; they were acknowledged as such when this notice was posted, and were and are being served willingly and without resistance; then, their religious envoys were acknowledged and obeyed without delay, and all subjects unconditionally and of their own free will became Christians and thus they remain. Their Highnesses received their allegiance with joy and benignity and decreed that they be treated in this spirit like good and loyal vassals and you are under the obligation to do the same.
> 
> Therefore, we request that you understand this text, deliberate on its contents within a reasonable time, and recognize the Church and its highest priest, the Pope, as rulers of the universe, and in their name the King and Queen of Spain as rulers of this land, allowing the religious fathers to preach our holy Faith to you. You own compliance as a duty to the King and we in his name will receive you with love and charity, respecting your freedom and that of your wives and sons and your rights of possession and we shall not compel you to baptism unless you, informed of the Truth, wish to convert to our holy Catholic Faith as almost all your neighbors have done in other islands, in exchange for which Their Highnesses bestow many privileges and exemptions upon you. Should you fail to comply, or delay maliciously in so doing, we assure you that with the help of God we shall use force against you, declaring war upon you from all sides and with all possible means, and we shall bind you to the yoke of the Church and of Their Highnesses; we shall enslave your persons, wives and sons, sell you or dispose of you as the King sees fit; we shall seize your possessions and harm you as much as we can as disobedient and resisting vassals. And we declare you guilty of resulting deaths and injuries, exempting Their Highnesses of such guilt as well as ourselves and the gentlemen who accompany us. We hereby request that legal signatures be affixed to this text and pray those present to bear witness for us, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> These Papal bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and European colonialism. Although for a short period as in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime". The followers of the church of England and Protestants did not use the papal bull as a justification. The position of the church was to condemn the slavery of Christians, but slavery was regarded as an old established and necessary institution which supplied Europe with the necessary workforce. In the 16th century African slaves had substituted almost all other ethnicities and religious enslaved groups in Europe. Within the Portuguese territory of Brazil, and even beyond its original borders, the enslavement of native Americans was carried out by the Bandeirantes.
> The Bandeirantes or "followers of the banner" were Portuguese colonial scouts in Brazil, members of the 16th-18th century South American slave-hunting expeditions, called Bandeiras (Portuguese for "flags"). Their purpose was to capture natives and force them into slavery.




This is directly from the link you provided, ding.

Are you on our side of truth, and acting as a double-agent?


----------



## Divine Wind

BreezeWood said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *how any worse could socialism* be than what your religion, christianity has already proven capable of ...
> 
> you are simply afraid of life without your book ... to control what otherwise is beyond your persuasion, free Spirits without the shackles of your false religion, promiscuity.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin purged about 39 million of his own citizens.  Mao up to twice as many.
> 
> Still, mankind is his own worst enemy.  Christians and Socialists throwing rocks at each other with each claiming the other is worse reminds me of an ape fighting its own image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, mankind is his own worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> certainly to date no recorded religion has intervened to make it otherwise or if you blame mankind for the faults of a few individuals what is your solution, more of the same.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Religion is a tool.  Every time you use the word "religion" insert the word "shovel" or "fork" and see if the sentence looks silly or not.   Do the same for the word "socialism" or "democracy".  If those don't work then use the word "mankind".


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....But Americans do equated capitalism to democracy and democracy with christianity
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreed with your broad brush view of Americans.
> 
> Capitalism is an economic system which does work well with democracies and republics.  Our democracy/republic does, for obvious reasons, have ties to Christianity since many of our Founders were Christians, but democracy isn't necessarily Christian.  Look at Turkey.
Click to expand...

Im talking about how Americans feel about those three things. My point is if they equate democracy with God and capitalism with democracy it's hard to convince them that capitalism is just another corruptable ism.

If it gets too bad we will develop a new ism but it's hard to scrap the current ism when it's gods favorite.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dolphins have saved humans from shark attack
> 
> 
> 
> While dolphins have, indeed, attacked sharks that were attacking humans, to claim they were doing it to "save" the human is pure anthropomorphism.  It comes from, as the link below states, the whackadoodle fringe.
> 
> Dolphins Saved a Swimmer From a Shark! A Rare Combination of Three Marine Myths.
Click to expand...

The truth is we aren't smart enough to know if other animals believe in evil or gods. God didn't make us that smart. We are just the smartest creatures on this one planet. Not the fastest or strongest and we can't stand extreme temperatures like tardigrade.

And we aren't even all that smart. Just smart enough to wonder about and fear death.

As for the God who visits I'm an atheist. Generic God I'm agnostic atheist. Can't say for sure but doesn't seem right. Seems more like wishful thinking


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....But Americans do equated capitalism to democracy and democracy with christianity
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreed with your broad brush view of Americans.
> 
> Capitalism is an economic system which does work well with democracies and republics.  Our democracy/republic does, for obvious reasons, have ties to Christianity since many of our Founders were Christians, but democracy isn't necessarily Christian.  Look at Turkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im talking about how Americans feel about those three things. My point is if they equate democracy with God and capitalism with democracy it's hard to convince them that capitalism is just another corruptable ism.
> 
> If it gets too bad we will develop a new ism but it's hard to scrap the current ism when it's gods favorite.
Click to expand...

Evidence that Americans feel this way or is this just your perception that Americans feel that way? 

FWIW, all of mankind's endeavors are corruptible.  Some are just less corruptible or, at least, more easily righted.  Socialism, dictatorships and other highly authoritarian governments are difficult to correct without violence.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> The truth is we aren't smart enough to know if other animals believe in evil or gods. ....


That's an incorrect statement.  Measuring intelligence in animals is fairly straightforward.  However, if you want to believe in unicorns and magic crystals, go for it.

FWIW, "agnostic atheist" is as logical as "democrat republican" or "socialist capitalist".....it does fit in with the magic crystal crowd.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Good and evil is a religious distinction.  For atheists, it's all relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an atheist?
Click to expand...

What you are saying is religions have books with very specific absolutes. So what? We have something better. A new rule book that can change with the times. And religion changes too. Look at how the new Pope just commuted the sentence of hell for all the Catholic women who got abortions.

There's reall


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....But Americans do equated capitalism to democracy and democracy with christianity
> 
> 
> 
> Disagreed with your broad brush view of Americans.
> 
> Capitalism is an economic system which does work well with democracies and republics.  Our democracy/republic does, for obvious reasons, have ties to Christianity since many of our Founders were Christians, but democracy isn't necessarily Christian.  Look at Turkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im talking about how Americans feel about those three things. My point is if they equate democracy with God and capitalism with democracy it's hard to convince them that capitalism is just another corruptable ism.
> 
> If it gets too bad we will develop a new ism but it's hard to scrap the current ism when it's gods favorite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence that Americans feel this way or is this just your perception that Americans feel that way?
> 
> FWIW, all of mankind's endeavors are corruptible.  Some are just less corruptible or, at least, more easily righted.  Socialism, dictatorships and other highly authoritarian governments are difficult to correct without violence.
Click to expand...

I agree. Even our very corrupt system where we are getting screwed by the rich and poor can be fixed if people just showed up to vote.

Do I have proof people in the bible belt believe America democracy and capitalism are God's favorite? No but I know that is their mentality and I've heard this about nationalistic countries.

Ps. I believe the best way is some capitalism and some things should be socialized.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> What you are saying is religions have books with very specific absolutes....


Wrong again.   You need to stop jumping to conclusions.  Try taking a deep breath, slowly let it out and try to see the world as it is and not as you want it to be.

Although the canonical Bible has several translations, even if we only used the KJV there'd still be a lot of interpretations thus creating dozens of different denominations.  Ego, no, religions don't have "books with very specific absolutes".  It's up to interpretation.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is we aren't smart enough to know if other animals believe in evil or gods. ....
> 
> 
> 
> That's an incorrect statement.  Measuring intelligence in animals is fairly straightforward.  However, if you want to believe in unicorns and magic crystals, go for it.
> 
> FWIW, "agnostic atheist" is as logical as "democrat republican" or "socialist capitalist".....it does fit in with the magic crystal crowd.
Click to expand...

Only a couple years ago we didn't think other animals were gay and turns out we are wrong.

Let me know when we are smart enough to communicate with dolphins. 

We are such a young primitive species still.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> I agree. Even our very corrupt system where we are getting screwed by the rich and poor can be fixed if people just showed up to vote.
> 
> Do I have proof people in the bible belt believe America democracy and capitalism are God's favorite? No but I know that is their mentality and I've heard this about nationalistic countries.
> 
> Ps. I believe the best way is some capitalism and some things should be socialized.


Agreed.  Now how do you get that other 40-50% to show up? 

Ahh, now you are qualifying it.  Good.  Please post your evidence.

I tend to agree.  The best form of government and economic system is a Republic with regulated capitalism and a social safety net for the weak.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Only a couple years ago we didn't think other animals were gay and turns out we are wrong...


Prove it.  Homosexual acts do not equate to being 100% homosexual.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is religions have books with very specific absolutes....
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.   You need to stop jumping to conclusions.  Try taking a deep breath, slowly let it out and try to see the world as it is and not as you want it to be.
> 
> Although the canonical Bible has several translations, even if we only used the KJV there'd still be a lot of interpretations thus creating dozens of different denominations.  Ego, no, religions don't have "books with very specific absolutes".  It's up to interpretation.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that! So true.

I was watching an old Jesus movie the other day and supposedly thousands of people saw/witnessed/experienced Jesus. Then it dawned on me that those people weren't the first Christians. They didn't write the new testament and pass on the story to their children. A guy name Paul showed up in greece 40 years after the fact and told the Greeks these stories. Soooo not believable


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Even our very corrupt system where we are getting screwed by the rich and poor can be fixed if people just showed up to vote.
> 
> Do I have proof people in the bible belt believe America democracy and capitalism are God's favorite? No but I know that is their mentality and I've heard this about nationalistic countries.
> 
> Ps. I believe the best way is some capitalism and some things should be socialized.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Now how do you get that other 40-50% to show up?
> 
> Ahh, now you are qualifying it.  Good.  Please post your evidence.
> 
> I tend to agree.  The best form of government and economic system is a Republic with regulated capitalism and a social safety net for the weak.
Click to expand...

You can get your evidence by asking any usmb right winger who believes America is God's favorite. Ask them if capitalism is God's favorite ism.


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already said, Socialism is a religion that is very closely related to two Christian religions, one of which we have a holiday for, minus the "god". The goal of socialism is to get to Communism, rather than Heaven. And of course, the goal is unattainable, but people are forced to strive and obey their rulers regardless, and the rulers keep making more money and power, while never letting the truth be known.
Click to expand...

Divine.Wind read this one


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is we aren't smart enough to know if other animals believe in evil or gods. ....
> 
> 
> 
> That's an incorrect statement.  Measuring intelligence in animals is fairly straightforward.  However, if you want to believe in unicorns and magic crystals, go for it.
> 
> FWIW, "agnostic atheist" is as logical as "democrat republican" or "socialist capitalist".....it does fit in with the magic crystal crowd.
Click to expand...

Let me explain. Theists say God visited so they know God exists. What is the opposite of that? It's atheism.

But what about generic God? You can't know for sure on that. So the most logical position is an agnostic atheist. Put it together. Agnostic means you can't know for sure and atheism says probably not.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a couple years ago we didn't think other animals were gay and turns out we are wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.  Homosexual acts do not equate to being 100% homosexual.
Click to expand...

You prove it. Jack a jackass off and see if he don't come back for seconds.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a couple years ago we didn't think other animals were gay and turns out we are wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.  Homosexual acts do not equate to being 100% homosexual.
Click to expand...

Follow me down to the bottom of the ocean where homo dolphins do it. Now can you talk to them? Then we don't know. 

The dolphin brain has been evolving for millions of years longer than ours. We don't know how intelligent they are. Did you hear about the lady in the 70's who gave dolphins LSD and had sex with them? We didn't learn very much since then unless you can show me we now completely understand the intelligence of these creatures


----------



## BreezeWood

Divine.Wind said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *how any worse could socialism* be than what your religion, christianity has already proven capable of ...
> 
> you are simply afraid of life without your book ... to control what otherwise is beyond your persuasion, free Spirits without the shackles of your false religion, promiscuity.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin purged about 39 million of his own citizens.  Mao up to twice as many.
> 
> Still, mankind is his own worst enemy.  Christians and Socialists throwing rocks at each other with each claiming the other is worse reminds me of an ape fighting its own image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, mankind is his own worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> certainly to date no recorded religion has intervened to make it otherwise or if you blame mankind for the faults of a few individuals what is your solution, more of the same.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is a tool.  Every time you use the word "religion" insert the word "shovel" or "fork" and see if the sentence looks silly or not.   Do the same for the word "socialism" or "democracy".  If those don't work then use the word "mankind".
Click to expand...

.


BreezeWood said:


> certainly to date no recorded religion has intervened to make it otherwise or if you blame mankind for the faults of a few individuals what is your solution, more of the same.





Divine.Wind said:


> Religion is a tool. Every time you use the word "religion" insert the word "shovel" or "fork" and see if the sentence looks silly or not. Do the same for the word "socialism" or "democracy". If those don't work then use the word "mankind".




I'm not seeing a response to what I wrote - you are just offering "the same" without a qualified solution.

my solution is to undo the 4th century bible to free those Spirits that so misguidedly set a course of mindless debauchery, bing and bring to lite the true simple message as a goal to be accomplished - that could lead in the beginning to a social democracy, anything better than the centuries of the same ...

ridiculing Fauna is not for me ever in good taste, and proves the depravity of humanity.

.


----------



## the_human_being




----------



## BreezeWood

the_human_being said:


> View attachment 103897


.

another example of a mindless debauchery ... human x being, the 4th century bible and modern society.

.


----------



## the_human_being

BreezeWood said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> another example of a mindless debauchery ... human x being, the 4th century bible and modern society.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it is right to end a human life for selfish reasons?  If so, it is likely that you have rationalized that they are not human and you have no distinction between good and evil.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is religions have books with very specific absolutes....
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.   You need to stop jumping to conclusions.  Try taking a deep breath, slowly let it out and try to see the world as it is and not as you want it to be.
> 
> Although the canonical Bible has several translations, even if we only used the KJV there'd still be a lot of interpretations thus creating dozens of different denominations.  Ego, no, religions don't have "books with very specific absolutes".  It's up to interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to say that! So true.
> 
> I was watching an old Jesus movie the other day and supposedly thousands of people saw/witnessed/experienced Jesus. Then it dawned on me that those people weren't the first Christians. They didn't write the new testament and pass on the story to their children. A guy name Paul showed up in greece 40 years after the fact and told the Greeks these stories. Soooo not believable
Click to expand...

Agreed the evidence is sketchy, but the impact is real.  It wasn't that many years ago that scientists proved the existence of the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs due to a constant layer of iridium.   The results of an event indicate it happened even if there isn't direct proof it did.   In this case, I'm referring to the existence of Jesus and  his movement, not necessarily all of the miracles or divinity attributed to  him.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a couple years ago we didn't think other animals were gay and turns out we are wrong...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.  Homosexual acts do not equate to being 100% homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You prove it. Jack a jackass off and see if he don't come back for seconds.
Click to expand...

Prove a negative?  That's not very scientific.  In fact, it sounds a lot more like an emotional argument.  Another case of you seeing the world the way you want it to be and not the way it really is.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe it is right to end a human life for selfish reasons?  If so, it is likely that you have rationalized that they are not human and you have no distinction between good and evil.
Click to expand...


No. All those lives taken in Iraq over oil was wrong! Very selfish. Bush is a christian


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are saying is religions have books with very specific absolutes....
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.   You need to stop jumping to conclusions.  Try taking a deep breath, slowly let it out and try to see the world as it is and not as you want it to be.
> 
> Although the canonical Bible has several translations, even if we only used the KJV there'd still be a lot of interpretations thus creating dozens of different denominations.  Ego, no, religions don't have "books with very specific absolutes".  It's up to interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to say that! So true.
> 
> I was watching an old Jesus movie the other day and supposedly thousands of people saw/witnessed/experienced Jesus. Then it dawned on me that those people weren't the first Christians. They didn't write the new testament and pass on the story to their children. A guy name Paul showed up in greece 40 years after the fact and told the Greeks these stories. Soooo not believable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed the evidence is sketchy, but the impact is real.  It wasn't that many years ago that scientists proved the existence of the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs due to a constant layer of iridium.   The results of an event indicate it happened even if there isn't direct proof it did.   In this case, I'm referring to the existence of Jesus and  his movement, not necessarily all of the miracles or divinity attributed to  him.
Click to expand...

Ok fine. He may have really existed


----------



## there4eyeM

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe it is right to end a human life for selfish reasons?  If so, it is likely that you have rationalized that they are not human and you have no distinction between good and evil.
Click to expand...

Seen this way, the U.S. has no mentioned distinction.
Life remains to be defined.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Ok fine. He may have really existed



Agreed.  I think many of the words attributed to him in the Bible are true.  In many cases so-called Christians don't follow those words, but they _use_ those words for selfish goals.  Look at all the hate spread by self-named Christians on this forum.

It reminds me of that bumper sticker which says *"I Love Jesus. It's his fan club I can't stand"*.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have terrible logic.... You can apply the same argument to slavery. Substitute the word "slavery" for "Christianity" in the above sentences, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already said, Socialism is a religion that is very closely related to two Christian religions, one of which we have a holiday for, minus the "god". The goal of socialism is to get to Communism, rather than Heaven. And of course, the goal is unattainable, but people are forced to strive and obey their rulers regardless, and the rulers keep making more money and power, while never letting the truth be known.
Click to expand...


Socialism intentionally denies examination. In fact there is no formal defined dogma. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. The genesis of the first socialist doctrines were reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism is diametrically opposed between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.

Socialism acts like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it.

Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn -- A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your logic, slavery should also be a force for good. Which is understandable, based on the amount of slaves Christianity has created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed since the beginning of mankind.  Most of it was indentured servitude, not forced slavery.  You act like this was a Christian invention.  I suggest you do some research into just how many slaves were brought to America compared to the rest of the world.  I believe it was something like 6%.  They were brought here by the British.  It was a British institution not a Christian institution.  The reason we have race problem today is because back in the 17th century (maybe 18th) a British official wrote a law to prevent mixing of races which spread throughout the colonies.  The rest of the world did not do this and allowed the races to mix.
> 
> The Greeks justified forced slavery because they believed they were morally superior.  The Romans believed that forced slavery was against the Law of Nature but justified it on the grounds of state supremacy.  Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but knew not how to end it at the time of our founding but wrote the Constitution is a way that would lead to its end.  I suspect that you have such a poor opinion of America and Christians that you won't believe this either.  Why?  Because it appears that you believe slavery existed because of Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a religious invention, not necessarily a Christian one. But the Christians took full reigns on that one once they got in power, and have been promoting it for about 2000 years.
> 
> Which is totally against what the idea of Jesus is about.
> 
> But hey, why bother with trivial things like that?
> 
> I believe in Jesus as a symbol for goodness. Christianity has not followed the goodness that he represented. And, along with other religions, they have done the most cruel, sickening, and inhumane acts in the history of the world.
> 
> That is not what Jesus was about... I hope you can embrace the idea of goodness, without need for a ruler with a whip and financial interests.
> 
> I wish you, and everyone here, a Merry Christmas!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The History of Slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you paste something without even reading it. Maybe you're hoping that God makes a random link you provide helpful to your cause?
> 
> Because if you read a little lower, and down to the section about "The Pope", you will see it agrees with everything I've been saying....
> 
> From Ding's link: The History of Slavery
> 
> Read down to the point where you get to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Pope*
> The 15th century Portuguese exploration of the African coast is commonly regarded as the harbinger of European colonialism. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" to hereditary slavery which legitimized slave trade under Catholic beliefs of that time. This approval of slavery was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455.
> 
> Below is a letter, which King Ferdinand sent along with Columbus on his second voyage to Haiti. It was to be communicated to the Taino/Arawak Indians.
> 
> *The letter:*
> In the name of King Ferdinand and Juana, his daughter, Queen of Castile and Leon, etc., conquerors of barbarian nations, we notify you as best we can that our Lord God Eternal created Heaven and earth and a man and woman from whom we all descend for all times and all over the world. In the 5,000 years since creation the multitude of these generations caused men to divide and establish kingdoms in various parts of the world, among whom God chose St. Peter as leader of mankind, regardless of their law, sect or belief. He seated St. Peter in Rome as the best place from which to rule the world but he allowed him to establish his seat in all parts of the world and rule all people, whether Christians, Moors, Jews, Gentiles or any other sect. He was named Pope, which means admirable and greatest father, governor of all men. Those who lived at that time obeyed St. Peter as Lord and superior King of the universe, and so did their descendants obey his successors and so on to the end of time.
> 
> The late Pope gave these islands and mainland of the ocean and the contents hereof to the above-mentioned King and Queen, as is certified in writing and you may see the documents if you should so desire. Therefore, Their Highnesses are lords and masters of this land; they were acknowledged as such when this notice was posted, and were and are being served willingly and without resistance; then, their religious envoys were acknowledged and obeyed without delay, and all subjects unconditionally and of their own free will became Christians and thus they remain. Their Highnesses received their allegiance with joy and benignity and decreed that they be treated in this spirit like good and loyal vassals and you are under the obligation to do the same.
> 
> Therefore, we request that you understand this text, deliberate on its contents within a reasonable time, and recognize the Church and its highest priest, the Pope, as rulers of the universe, and in their name the King and Queen of Spain as rulers of this land, allowing the religious fathers to preach our holy Faith to you. You own compliance as a duty to the King and we in his name will receive you with love and charity, respecting your freedom and that of your wives and sons and your rights of possession and we shall not compel you to baptism unless you, informed of the Truth, wish to convert to our holy Catholic Faith as almost all your neighbors have done in other islands, in exchange for which Their Highnesses bestow many privileges and exemptions upon you. Should you fail to comply, or delay maliciously in so doing, we assure you that with the help of God we shall use force against you, declaring war upon you from all sides and with all possible means, and we shall bind you to the yoke of the Church and of Their Highnesses; we shall enslave your persons, wives and sons, sell you or dispose of you as the King sees fit; we shall seize your possessions and harm you as much as we can as disobedient and resisting vassals. And we declare you guilty of resulting deaths and injuries, exempting Their Highnesses of such guilt as well as ourselves and the gentlemen who accompany us. We hereby request that legal signatures be affixed to this text and pray those present to bear witness for us, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> These Papal bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and European colonialism. Although for a short period as in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime". The followers of the church of England and Protestants did not use the papal bull as a justification. The position of the church was to condemn the slavery of Christians, but slavery was regarded as an old established and necessary institution which supplied Europe with the necessary workforce. In the 16th century African slaves had substituted almost all other ethnicities and religious enslaved groups in Europe. Within the Portuguese territory of Brazil, and even beyond its original borders, the enslavement of native Americans was carried out by the Bandeirantes.
> The Bandeirantes or "followers of the banner" were Portuguese colonial scouts in Brazil, members of the 16th-18th century South American slave-hunting expeditions, called Bandeiras (Portuguese for "flags"). Their purpose was to capture natives and force them into slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is directly from the link you provided, ding.
> 
> Are you on our side of truth, and acting as a double-agent?
Click to expand...

Socialism has always sought to subordinate religion even when it was done by one religious group against another.  In every single case, socialism was a reaction.  Socialists practice critical theory which is the practice to criticize everything you don't believe (i.e. a reaction) to justify what you do believe (i.e. never validated) without having to examine what you do believe.


----------



## sealybobo

there4eyeM said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> 
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe it is right to end a human life for selfish reasons?  If so, it is likely that you have rationalized that they are not human and you have no distinction between good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seen this way, the U.S. has no mentioned distinction.
> Life remains to be defined.
Click to expand...

Haven't we rationalized the people we bomb in afgan, Aleppo, Syria, Iraq aren't human?

I don't see Carroll crying every day over the thousands of innocents who die in the ME. Or he isn't losing any sleep over those lives as far as I can tell.

In fact he doesn't even want to save refuges. Not his problem. So how much does Carroll value life?

But a seed in the womb?


----------



## there4eyeM

The word being searched for here is 'ideology'. 'Socialism' (varied as it is) is an example of ideology. Religion is something else, although ideology can certainly play.


----------



## ding

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Good and evil is a religious distinction.  For atheists, it's all relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an atheist?
Click to expand...

All three of them are atheists who are ashamed of admitting they are atheists so they claim to be agnostics or humanists but argue against belief in God at every turn.


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> 
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe it is right to end a human life for selfish reasons?  If so, it is likely that you have rationalized that they are not human and you have no distinction between good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seen this way, the U.S. has no mentioned distinction.
> Life remains to be defined.
Click to expand...

Science defines life.  You reject science.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe it is right to end a human life for selfish reasons?  If so, it is likely that you have rationalized that they are not human and you have no distinction between good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seen this way, the U.S. has no mentioned distinction.
> Life remains to be defined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't we rationalized the people we bomb in afgan, Aleppo, Syria, Iraq aren't human?
> 
> I don't see Carroll crying every day over the thousands of innocents who die in the ME. Or he isn't losing any sleep over those lives as far as I can tell.
> 
> In fact he doesn't even want to save refuges. Not his problem. So how much does Carroll value life?
> 
> But a seed in the womb?
Click to expand...

Don't be silly.  Of course they are human.


----------



## there4eyeM

What is the scientific definition of life? How is the fact of life existing in the universe scientifically explained? Not scientific observations (or supposed observations), but explanation, definition.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Good and evil is a religious distinction.  For atheists, it's all relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All three of them are atheists who are ashamed of admitting they are atheists so they claim to be agnostics or humanists but argue against belief in God at every turn.
Click to expand...

Is that what you believe? I thought were smarter than that.

For one, so what if I don't believe in God? Does it make me a bad person? Am I going to hell? Why do you believe belief is important?

And I don't believe a God exists. Nothing wrong with believing that, is there? Also nothing wrong with you believing there is as long as it's not hurting anyone. I believe religion is a lie that's holding us back.

So I'm not ashamed to admit I don't believe. Calling myself an agnostic atheist means I've recognized that in order for me to know a God doesn't exist I would have to be one myself. So anyone who says they are agnostic is just admitting there is no way to know.

So in a way, if you were being honest too, you'd admit you are an agnostic theist because you don't know either.

Unless you believe a religion that claims God visited. Then you might believe God literally wrote the bible. We have members here who believe that.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> View attachment 103897


I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving


----------



## sealybobo

there4eyeM said:


> What is the scientific definition of life? How is the fact of life existing in the universe scientifically explained? Not scientific observations (or supposed observations), but explanation, definition.


What is religions explanation? Maybe we don't have one just don't buy yours


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
Click to expand...


Evolving into what?  I'm pretty perfect the way I am. I was blessed with good looks and a high IQ.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Good and evil is a religious distinction.  For atheists, it's all relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All three of them are atheists who are ashamed of admitting they are atheists so they claim to be agnostics or humanists but argue against belief in God at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what you believe? I thought were smarter than that.
> 
> For one, so what if I don't believe in God? Does it make me a bad person? Am I going to hell? Why do you believe belief is important?
> 
> And I don't believe a God exists. Nothing wrong with believing that, is there? Also nothing wrong with you believing there is as long as it's not hurting anyone. I believe religion is a lie that's holding us back.
> 
> So I'm not ashamed to admit I don't believe. Calling myself an agnostic atheist means I've recognized that in order for me to know a God doesn't exist I would have to be one myself. So anyone who says they are agnostic is just admitting there is no way to know.
> 
> So in a way, if you were being honest too, you'd admit you are an agnostic theist because you don't know either.
> 
> Unless you believe a religion that claims God visited. Then you might believe God literally wrote the bible. We have members here who believe that.
Click to expand...


How is someone else's beliefs holding you back?  Are you so insecure that you must depend upon someone else in order to get to where you want to go? Your being agnostic is absolutely no millstone around my neck.


----------



## there4eyeM

sealybobo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the scientific definition of life? How is the fact of life existing in the universe scientifically explained? Not scientific observations (or supposed observations), but explanation, definition.
> 
> 
> 
> What is religions explanation? Maybe we don't have one just don't buy yours
Click to expand...

Is this some kind of joke?


----------



## there4eyeM

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolving into what?  I'm pretty perfect the way I am. I was blessed with good looks and a high IQ.
Click to expand...

Everyone is perfectly who they are.


----------



## BreezeWood

the_human_being said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> another example of a mindless debauchery ... human x being, the 4th century bible and modern society.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
Click to expand...

.


the_human_being said:


> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.



other than the disparity within that number who might even own a bible who do not disagree your post has what to do with christianities history of oppression and bloodshed ... something sane people work to remedy as is the Commandment from the Almighty than the disingenuous that strive to repeat the past for their own self-centered and pseudo well being.
.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolving into what?  I'm pretty perfect the way I am. I was blessed with good looks and a high IQ.
Click to expand...

Your ancestors 1000 years from now will be a lot smarter.

The ones living on Mars will be evolving into better Martians


----------



## sealybobo

there4eyeM said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the scientific definition of life? How is the fact of life existing in the universe scientifically explained? Not scientific observations (or supposed observations), but explanation, definition.
> 
> 
> 
> What is religions explanation? Maybe we don't have one just don't buy yours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this some kind of joke?
Click to expand...

II know what your explanation is. It's ridiculous. That's why I want you to say it out loud and proud


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> What is the scientific definition of life? How is the fact of life existing in the universe scientifically explained? Not scientific observations (or supposed observations), but explanation, definition.


The 7 Characteristics of Life


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous. No distinction between good and evil? Yea, as if you know better then me what's good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Good and evil is a religious distinction.  For atheists, it's all relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All three of them are atheists who are ashamed of admitting they are atheists so they claim to be agnostics or humanists but argue against belief in God at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what you believe? I thought were smarter than that.
> 
> For one, so what if I don't believe in God? Does it make me a bad person? Am I going to hell? Why do you believe belief is important?
> 
> And I don't believe a God exists. Nothing wrong with believing that, is there? Also nothing wrong with you believing there is as long as it's not hurting anyone. I believe religion is a lie that's holding us back.
> 
> So I'm not ashamed to admit I don't believe. Calling myself an agnostic atheist means I've recognized that in order for me to know a God doesn't exist I would have to be one myself. So anyone who says they are agnostic is just admitting there is no way to know.
> 
> So in a way, if you were being honest too, you'd admit you are an agnostic theist because you don't know either.
> 
> Unless you believe a religion that claims God visited. Then you might believe God literally wrote the bible. We have members here who believe that.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that you are afraid or embarrassed  to unconditionally admit that you are an atheist even though all you ever do is argue against belief in God.  You don't act like an agnostic atheist.  You act like an atheist.   You don't believe in God.  Face it, you are an atheist.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
Click to expand...

No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.


----------



## there4eyeM

ding said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the scientific definition of life? How is the fact of life existing in the universe scientifically explained? Not scientific observations (or supposed observations), but explanation, definition.
> 
> 
> 
> The 7 Characteristics of Life
Click to expand...

Observations, not analysis. Saying "We see this in living things" isn't the same as saying "This is what life is and how it comes to exist."


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the scientific definition of life? How is the fact of life existing in the universe scientifically explained? Not scientific observations (or supposed observations), but explanation, definition.
> 
> 
> 
> The 7 Characteristics of Life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Observations, not analysis. Saying "We see this in living things" isn't the same as saying "This is what life is and how it comes to exist."
Click to expand...

Don't be silly.  Of course it is.  Are you trying to argue as there is no such thing as life.  Don't be stupid.  Life exists and has common traits.  Life is continuous.  What you are really asking is where did the first life come from?  That is irrelevant to what started this conversation.  Human life begins at conception when a genetically distinct new human being is created.  No amount of wannabe philosopher stupid logic changes this fact.


----------



## there4eyeM

Changing the subject isn't answering the question. Of what does life consist?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.




all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.

.


----------



## ding

there4eyeM said:


> Changing the subject isn't answering the question. Of what does life consist?


I didn't change the subject.  We define what life is by what makes life unique.  Those 7 traits are what makes life unique and distinguishes living organisms as living organisms.  You want to play a silly word game to blur the line of living organisms.  I have no interest in wasting my time doing that.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good and evil is a religious distinction.  For atheists, it's all relative.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All three of them are atheists who are ashamed of admitting they are atheists so they claim to be agnostics or humanists but argue against belief in God at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what you believe? I thought were smarter than that.
> 
> For one, so what if I don't believe in God? Does it make me a bad person? Am I going to hell? Why do you believe belief is important?
> 
> And I don't believe a God exists. Nothing wrong with believing that, is there? Also nothing wrong with you believing there is as long as it's not hurting anyone. I believe religion is a lie that's holding us back.
> 
> So I'm not ashamed to admit I don't believe. Calling myself an agnostic atheist means I've recognized that in order for me to know a God doesn't exist I would have to be one myself. So anyone who says they are agnostic is just admitting there is no way to know.
> 
> So in a way, if you were being honest too, you'd admit you are an agnostic theist because you don't know either.
> 
> Unless you believe a religion that claims God visited. Then you might believe God literally wrote the bible. We have members here who believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I believe that you are afraid or embarrassed  to unconditionally admit that you are an atheist even though all you ever do is argue against belief in God.  You don't act like an agnostic atheist.  You act like an atheist.   You don't believe in God.  Face it, you are an atheist.
Click to expand...

Yes thank you! It's theists that make me have to admit I can't know so I can't truly be an atheist. In that sense I'm just being honest and admitting I don't know. When I say I'm an agnostic atheist I'm being nice and giving in. I'm not being stubborn or acting like I know there isn't a creator.

But everything tells me there is no God. And if there is he didn't visit. He isn't the character that visited Mary mo Jo or moses. He doesn't care if you believe and doesn't send people who don't believe Mary Jo mo or mo to hell. That I'm certain as can be


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.

But heck even Christians get abortions.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All three of them are atheists who are ashamed of admitting they are atheists so they claim to be agnostics or humanists but argue against belief in God at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what you believe? I thought were smarter than that.
> 
> For one, so what if I don't believe in God? Does it make me a bad person? Am I going to hell? Why do you believe belief is important?
> 
> And I don't believe a God exists. Nothing wrong with believing that, is there? Also nothing wrong with you believing there is as long as it's not hurting anyone. I believe religion is a lie that's holding us back.
> 
> So I'm not ashamed to admit I don't believe. Calling myself an agnostic atheist means I've recognized that in order for me to know a God doesn't exist I would have to be one myself. So anyone who says they are agnostic is just admitting there is no way to know.
> 
> So in a way, if you were being honest too, you'd admit you are an agnostic theist because you don't know either.
> 
> Unless you believe a religion that claims God visited. Then you might believe God literally wrote the bible. We have members here who believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I believe that you are afraid or embarrassed  to unconditionally admit that you are an atheist even though all you ever do is argue against belief in God.  You don't act like an agnostic atheist.  You act like an atheist.   You don't believe in God.  Face it, you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes thank you! It's theists that make me have to admit I can't know so I can't truly be an atheist. In that sense I'm just being honest and admitting I don't know. When I say I'm an agnostic atheist I'm being nice and giving in. I'm not being stubborn or acting like I know there isn't a creator.
> 
> But everything tells me there is no God. And if there is he didn't visit. He isn't the character that visited Mary mo Jo or moses. He doesn't care if you believe and doesn't send people who don't believe Mary Jo mo or mo to hell. That I'm certain as can be
Click to expand...

You don't act like you don't know.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
Click to expand...

No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you an atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> All three of them are atheists who are ashamed of admitting they are atheists so they claim to be agnostics or humanists but argue against belief in God at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what you believe? I thought were smarter than that.
> 
> For one, so what if I don't believe in God? Does it make me a bad person? Am I going to hell? Why do you believe belief is important?
> 
> And I don't believe a God exists. Nothing wrong with believing that, is there? Also nothing wrong with you believing there is as long as it's not hurting anyone. I believe religion is a lie that's holding us back.
> 
> So I'm not ashamed to admit I don't believe. Calling myself an agnostic atheist means I've recognized that in order for me to know a God doesn't exist I would have to be one myself. So anyone who says they are agnostic is just admitting there is no way to know.
> 
> So in a way, if you were being honest too, you'd admit you are an agnostic theist because you don't know either.
> 
> Unless you believe a religion that claims God visited. Then you might believe God literally wrote the bible. We have members here who believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I believe that you are afraid or embarrassed  to unconditionally admit that you are an atheist even though all you ever do is argue against belief in God.  You don't act like an agnostic atheist.  You act like an atheist.   You don't believe in God.  Face it, you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes thank you! It's theists that make me have to admit I can't know so I can't truly be an atheist. In that sense I'm just being honest and admitting I don't know. When I say I'm an agnostic atheist I'm being nice and giving in. I'm not being stubborn or acting like I know there isn't a creator.
> 
> But everything tells me there is no God. And if there is he didn't visit. He isn't the character that visited Mary mo Jo or moses. He doesn't care if you believe and doesn't send people who don't believe Mary Jo mo or mo to hell. That I'm certain as can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't act like you don't know.
Click to expand...

You would have to be a God yourself because God could be anywhere in our universe or even outside our universe tending to his other potatoes in his garden of universes.

The point I want to make is it doesn't matter if you believe because that kind of petty God is soooo man made. If there's a god be nice and you'll have a conversation with him in the end.

Funny thing is I will confidently defend myself when I meet your God. You'll be embarrassed for jacking off not me. 

And I'm not a thief murderer or liar.

Well, I've lied. 2 out of 3 ain't bad


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Given your behavior I'm going to have to disagree with you.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> All three of them are atheists who are ashamed of admitting they are atheists so they claim to be agnostics or humanists but argue against belief in God at every turn.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you believe? I thought were smarter than that.
> 
> For one, so what if I don't believe in God? Does it make me a bad person? Am I going to hell? Why do you believe belief is important?
> 
> And I don't believe a God exists. Nothing wrong with believing that, is there? Also nothing wrong with you believing there is as long as it's not hurting anyone. I believe religion is a lie that's holding us back.
> 
> So I'm not ashamed to admit I don't believe. Calling myself an agnostic atheist means I've recognized that in order for me to know a God doesn't exist I would have to be one myself. So anyone who says they are agnostic is just admitting there is no way to know.
> 
> So in a way, if you were being honest too, you'd admit you are an agnostic theist because you don't know either.
> 
> Unless you believe a religion that claims God visited. Then you might believe God literally wrote the bible. We have members here who believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I believe that you are afraid or embarrassed  to unconditionally admit that you are an atheist even though all you ever do is argue against belief in God.  You don't act like an agnostic atheist.  You act like an atheist.   You don't believe in God.  Face it, you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes thank you! It's theists that make me have to admit I can't know so I can't truly be an atheist. In that sense I'm just being honest and admitting I don't know. When I say I'm an agnostic atheist I'm being nice and giving in. I'm not being stubborn or acting like I know there isn't a creator.
> 
> But everything tells me there is no God. And if there is he didn't visit. He isn't the character that visited Mary mo Jo or moses. He doesn't care if you believe and doesn't send people who don't believe Mary Jo mo or mo to hell. That I'm certain as can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't act like you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to be a God yourself because God could be anywhere in our universe or even outside our universe tending to his other potatoes in his garden of universes.
> 
> The point I want to make is it doesn't matter if you believe because that kind of petty God is soooo man made. If there's a god be nice and you'll have a conversation with him in the end.
> 
> Funny thing is I will confidently defend myself when I meet your God. You'll be embarrassed for jacking off not me.
> 
> And I'm not a thief murderer or liar.
> 
> Well, I've lied. 2 out of 3 ain't bad
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry but lots of Christians get abortions too. So many of them that we made it legal despite what the religious right says about it being murder.

I think you know the difference between these women and real murderers


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but lots of Christians get abortions too. So many of them that we made it legal despite what the religious right says about it being murder.
> 
> I think you know the difference between these women and real murderers
Click to expand...

Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly what religion does.  You say you don't take the bible literally but that's a lie. You tell little children God sent his son and he performed miracles and was reserirected. You tell them this story as if its a fact. You think you are doing the right thing but you are wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but lots of Christians get abortions too. So many of them that we made it legal despite what the religious right says about it being murder.
> 
> I think you know the difference between these women and real murderers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?
Click to expand...

What makes you think getting an abortion is wrong? I mean I get it that that seed would grow to be a human but whats the problem with removing the seed before it matures?

Republicans are going to do a lot to abortion. Limit the number of clinics that perform them, make it a 2 month cut off, etc.

So if someone removes the seed 5 weeks in, who told you this is bad?


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
Click to expand...

.


sealybobo said:


> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person.



and also, for him he believes 4th century christianity are the gods to believe in.




sealybobo said:


> I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want



much the same as the Terrapin hatchlings to the Seagulls along the oceans edge - the Almighty's is a carnivorous Garden.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your behavior I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Given your behavior I'm going to have to disagree with you.




what since the 4th century is your proudest moment in christian history ...

.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that's exactly what religion does.  You say you don't take the bible literally but that's a lie. You tell little children God sent his son and he performed miracles and was reserirected. You tell them this story as if its a fact. You think you are doing the right thing but you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Your understanding of it 180 degrees to my understanding of it.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but lots of Christians get abortions too. So many of them that we made it legal despite what the religious right says about it being murder.
> 
> I think you know the difference between these women and real murderers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think getting an abortion is wrong? I mean I get it that that seed would grow to be a human but whats the problem with removing the seed before it matures?
> 
> Republicans are going to do a lot to abortion. Limit the number of clinics that perform them, make it a 2 month cut off, etc.
> 
> So if someone removes the seed 5 weeks in, who told you this is bad?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's bad.  That's why women agonize over the decision.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That argument does not work.  Does slavery still exist?  No.  Why not?  Because it was based on failed behaviors and error cannot stand.  Does Western Civilization still exist?  Yes.  Why?  Because virtue is the greatest organizing principle of men.  Despite your beliefs to the contrary, Western Civilization was built on the virtues of Christianity.  Unlike failed behaviors, successful behaviors lead to success.  The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already said, Socialism is a religion that is very closely related to two Christian religions, one of which we have a holiday for, minus the "god". The goal of socialism is
> to get to Communism, rather than Heaven. And of course, the goal is unattainable, but people are forced to strive and obey their rulers regardless, and the rulers keep making more money and power, while never letting the truth be known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism intentionally denies examination. In fact there is no formal defined dogma. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. The genesis of the first socialist doctrines were reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism is diametrically opposed between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.
> 
> Socialism acts like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it.
> 
> Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn -- A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978
> 
> The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich
Click to expand...


More links?!? 

Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore... 

But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity. 

But atheists are not Socialists! Geez... 

Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak! 

People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth. 

We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us... 

And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your logic, slavery should also be a force for good. Which is understandable, based on the amount of slaves Christianity has created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery has existed since the beginning of mankind.  Most of it was indentured servitude, not forced slavery.  You act like this was a Christian invention.  I suggest you do some research into just how many slaves were brought to America compared to the rest of the world.  I believe it was something like 6%.  They were brought here by the British.  It was a British institution not a Christian institution.  The reason we have race problem today is because back in the 17th century (maybe 18th) a British official wrote a law to prevent mixing of races which spread throughout the colonies.  The rest of the world did not do this and allowed the races to mix.
> 
> The Greeks justified forced slavery because they believed they were morally superior.  The Romans believed that forced slavery was against the Law of Nature but justified it on the grounds of state supremacy.  Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but knew not how to end it at the time of our founding but wrote the Constitution is a way that would lead to its end.  I suspect that you have such a poor opinion of America and Christians that you won't believe this either.  Why?  Because it appears that you believe slavery existed because of Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery was a religious invention, not necessarily a Christian one. But the Christians took full reigns on that one once they got in power, and have been promoting it for about 2000 years.
> 
> Which is totally against what the idea of Jesus is about.
> 
> But hey, why bother with trivial things like that?
> 
> I believe in Jesus as a symbol for goodness. Christianity has not followed the goodness that he represented. And, along with other religions, they have done the most cruel, sickening, and inhumane acts in the history of the world.
> 
> That is not what Jesus was about... I hope you can embrace the idea of goodness, without need for a ruler with a whip and financial interests.
> 
> I wish you, and everyone here, a Merry Christmas!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The History of Slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you paste something without even reading it. Maybe you're hoping that God makes a random link you provide helpful to your cause?
> 
> Because if you read a little lower, and down to the section about "The Pope", you will see it agrees with everything I've been saying....
> 
> From Ding's link: The History of Slavery
> 
> Read down to the point where you get to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Pope*
> The 15th century Portuguese exploration of the African coast is commonly regarded as the harbinger of European colonialism. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" to hereditary slavery which legitimized slave trade under Catholic beliefs of that time. This approval of slavery was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455.
> 
> Below is a letter, which King Ferdinand sent along with Columbus on his second voyage to Haiti. It was to be communicated to the Taino/Arawak Indians.
> 
> *The letter:*
> In the name of King Ferdinand and Juana, his daughter, Queen of Castile and Leon, etc., conquerors of barbarian nations, we notify you as best we can that our Lord God Eternal created Heaven and earth and a man and woman from whom we all descend for all times and all over the world. In the 5,000 years since creation the multitude of these generations caused men to divide and establish kingdoms in various parts of the world, among whom God chose St. Peter as leader of mankind, regardless of their law, sect or belief. He seated St. Peter in Rome as the best place from which to rule the world but he allowed him to establish his seat in all parts of the world and rule all people, whether Christians, Moors, Jews, Gentiles or any other sect. He was named Pope, which means admirable and greatest father, governor of all men. Those who lived at that time obeyed St. Peter as Lord and superior King of the universe, and so did their descendants obey his successors and so on to the end of time.
> 
> The late Pope gave these islands and mainland of the ocean and the contents hereof to the above-mentioned King and Queen, as is certified in writing and you may see the documents if you should so desire. Therefore, Their Highnesses are lords and masters of this land; they were acknowledged as such when this notice was posted, and were and are being served willingly and without resistance; then, their religious envoys were acknowledged and obeyed without delay, and all subjects unconditionally and of their own free will became Christians and thus they remain. Their Highnesses received their allegiance with joy and benignity and decreed that they be treated in this spirit like good and loyal vassals and you are under the obligation to do the same.
> 
> Therefore, we request that you understand this text, deliberate on its contents within a reasonable time, and recognize the Church and its highest priest, the Pope, as rulers of the universe, and in their name the King and Queen of Spain as rulers of this land, allowing the religious fathers to preach our holy Faith to you. You own compliance as a duty to the King and we in his name will receive you with love and charity, respecting your freedom and that of your wives and sons and your rights of possession and we shall not compel you to baptism unless you, informed of the Truth, wish to convert to our holy Catholic Faith as almost all your neighbors have done in other islands, in exchange for which Their Highnesses bestow many privileges and exemptions upon you. Should you fail to comply, or delay maliciously in so doing, we assure you that with the help of God we shall use force against you, declaring war upon you from all sides and with all possible means, and we shall bind you to the yoke of the Church and of Their Highnesses; we shall enslave your persons, wives and sons, sell you or dispose of you as the King sees fit; we shall seize your possessions and harm you as much as we can as disobedient and resisting vassals. And we declare you guilty of resulting deaths and injuries, exempting Their Highnesses of such guilt as well as ourselves and the gentlemen who accompany us. We hereby request that legal signatures be affixed to this text and pray those present to bear witness for us, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> These Papal bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and European colonialism. Although for a short period as in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime". The followers of the church of England and Protestants did not use the papal bull as a justification. The position of the church was to condemn the slavery of Christians, but slavery was regarded as an old established and necessary institution which supplied Europe with the necessary workforce. In the 16th century African slaves had substituted almost all other ethnicities and religious enslaved groups in Europe. Within the Portuguese territory of Brazil, and even beyond its original borders, the enslavement of native Americans was carried out by the Bandeirantes.
> The Bandeirantes or "followers of the banner" were Portuguese colonial scouts in Brazil, members of the 16th-18th century South American slave-hunting expeditions, called Bandeiras (Portuguese for "flags"). Their purpose was to capture natives and force them into slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is directly from the link you provided, ding.
> 
> Are you on our side of truth, and acting as a double-agent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism has always sought to subordinate religion even when it was done by one religious group against another.  In every single case, socialism was a reaction.  Socialists practice critical theory which is the practice to criticize everything you don't believe (i.e. a reaction) to justify what you do believe (i.e. never validated) without having to examine what you do believe.
Click to expand...


Again, Christianity has done the same exact thing. Read the excerpt I provided above, from the link you posted, and tell me where the difference lies.

George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

That quote is very true, and is the path where we are headed, once again for the umpteenth time. Another religious reboot of our society.... 

"Kill 'em all and start over" is not the philosophy we should be following, and definitely not what Jesus wanted. Your religion is no more true than any other of the 25,000 religions in this world. Enjoy your faith, but do not push it onto others and do not judge others for not believing the same thing you do. 

We all have to work together if we're going to use science to figure out a way to keep our Earth going with the increasing population, and dwindling resources to provide for our increasing demands. We need to stop thinking that we're "special" based on a religion that we were brainwashed from birth into, and think we "deserve" the cream of the crop due to that religion. We have to learn to co-exist and help each other, rather than find ways to undermine each other. 

I don't know how that's going to be possible, with religious fanatics. We need an intervention...


----------



## RWS

That "intervention" could very well be "God" popping his face onto the worldwide sky and saying "Here I am! Now you know! Believe in _<insert religion here>_ or I will smite you all!"

That would certainly work!!

But a bit more likely would be... aliens arriving and teaching us far more advanced concepts of spirituality and the universe, before we blow ourselves up over petty lies.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and also, for him he believes 4th century christianity are the gods to believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> much the same as the Terrapin hatchlings to the Seagulls along the oceans edge - the Almighty's is a carnivorous Garden.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

And I would euthanize a severely retarded baby that was just born. But I'm Greek. My Spartan ancestors would have thrown it in the pit of death


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but lots of Christians get abortions too. So many of them that we made it legal despite what the religious right says about it being murder.
> 
> I think you know the difference between these women and real murderers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think getting an abortion is wrong? I mean I get it that that seed would grow to be a human but whats the problem with removing the seed before it matures?
> 
> Republicans are going to do a lot to abortion. Limit the number of clinics that perform them, make it a 2 month cut off, etc.
> 
> So if someone removes the seed 5 weeks in, who told you this is bad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's bad.  That's why women agonize over the decision.
Click to expand...

They agonize over miscarriages too but their child didn't die. That's why no funeral or burial site


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but lots of Christians get abortions too. So many of them that we made it legal despite what the religious right says about it being murder.
> 
> I think you know the difference between these women and real murderers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think getting an abortion is wrong? I mean I get it that that seed would grow to be a human but whats the problem with removing the seed before it matures?
> 
> Republicans are going to do a lot to abortion. Limit the number of clinics that perform them, make it a 2 month cut off, etc.
> 
> So if someone removes the seed 5 weeks in, who told you this is bad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's bad.  That's why women agonize over the decision.
Click to expand...

Not so bad they don't go through with it.

And they'd do it again if in the same situation.


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying is that they were more apt to conquer, in the name of their God, and force people to believe or get tortured and die. Or go into slavery. Yes, Christianity had MUCH success in that... That is NOT a good thing...
> 
> Honestly, you should be ashamed about it, and praying to God daily to forgive you for those sins by your ancestors, that you continue to promote and ejaculate upon us. You should feel very guilty. But that's no reason to accept fiction as reality.
> 
> The vikings did the same exact things that you praise Christianity for doing. Why no love for the Vikings and Valhalla?
> 
> And virtue was not created by Christianity. Virtue means goodness. And like I said in rule #1, religion did not create goodness. That is a trait that most of us inherently have, due to natural selection. It's religion that makes us go against that goodness...
> 
> 
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already said, Socialism is a religion that is very closely related to two Christian religions, one of which we have a holiday for, minus the "god". The goal of socialism is
> to get to Communism, rather than Heaven. And of course, the goal is unattainable, but people are forced to strive and obey their rulers regardless, and the rulers keep making more money and power, while never letting the truth be known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism intentionally denies examination. In fact there is no formal defined dogma. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. The genesis of the first socialist doctrines were reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism is diametrically opposed between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.
> 
> Socialism acts like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it.
> 
> Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn -- A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978
> 
> The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
Click to expand...

Except believing socialism is bad I agree. Some things should be socialized.

Or properly regulated.


----------



## yiostheoy

there4eyeM said:


> The word being searched for here is 'ideology'. 'Socialism' (varied as it is) is an example of ideology. Religion is something else, although ideology can certainly play.


I divide human thought into 3 divisions:

1 - Philosophy

2 - Science

3 - Religion

I would put socialism under political philosophy and ideology under personal philosophy.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolving into what?  I'm pretty perfect the way I am. I was blessed with good looks and a high IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ancestors 1000 years from now will be a lot smarter.
> 
> The ones living on Mars will be evolving into better Martians
Click to expand...


I don't know if they will or not. There are still some things I have to do that my kids can't do and they all have college educations. I see many young college graduates who can't pour piss out of a boot.


----------



## the_human_being

BreezeWood said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> another example of a mindless debauchery ... human x being, the 4th century bible and modern society.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> other than the disparity within that number who might even own a bible who do not disagree your post has what to do with christianities history of oppression and bloodshed ... something sane people work to remedy as is the Commandment from the Almighty than the disingenuous that strive to repeat the past for their own self-centered and pseudo well being.
> .
Click to expand...


I agree the number is high. Many who own Bibles never open them and read them. I think the question was asked and many responded without being totally honest.


----------



## the_human_being

Well, for you educated folks the first rule of biology is that it takes life to produce life. Life doesn't come from something that is not alive itself. Now, all you need do is figure out what or who was alive first.


----------



## Divine Wind

ding said:


> Yeah, it's bad.  That's why women agonize over the decision.


_Some_ women.  Since, IIRC, the nation is about 74% Christian, it's natural that Christian indoctrination/teachings would give a woman who is considering an abortion pause before making a decision.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and also, for him he believes 4th century christianity are the gods to believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> much the same as the Terrapin hatchlings to the Seagulls along the oceans edge - the Almighty's is a carnivorous Garden.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I would euthanize a severely retarded baby that was just born. But I'm Greek. My Spartan ancestors would have thrown it in the pit of death
Click to expand...

Zika babies may convert a lot of Christians and/or Republicans to reconsidering their stance on abortion prior to 24 weeks.  Many such birth defects and diseases can be detected prior to the 24 week period.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and also, for him he believes 4th century christianity are the gods to believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> much the same as the Terrapin hatchlings to the Seagulls along the oceans edge - the Almighty's is a carnivorous Garden.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I would euthanize a severely retarded baby that was just born. But I'm Greek. My Spartan ancestors would have thrown it in the pit of death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zika babies may convert a lot of Christians and/or Republicans to reconsidering their stance on abortion prior to 24 weeks.  Many such birth defects and diseases can be detected prior to the 24 week period.
Click to expand...


You mean prior to 24 weeks or past 24 weeks?  And did you mean CAN'T be detected prior to 24 weeks or can it be detected?  I'd abort my zika baby.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolving into what?  I'm pretty perfect the way I am. I was blessed with good looks and a high IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ancestors 1000 years from now will be a lot smarter.
> 
> The ones living on Mars will be evolving into better Martians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if they will or not. There are still some things I have to do that my kids can't do and they all have college educations. I see many young college graduates who can't pour piss out of a boot.
Click to expand...


Oh that's absolutely true.  Us humans rely so heavily on technology there's a lot we can't do that we could do 100 years ago.  Very true.  

Can you start a fire with 2 sticks?  I've never done that.  So my ancestors 1000 years ago might consider me a retard.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's bad.  That's why women agonize over the decision.
> 
> 
> 
> _Some_ women.  Since, IIRC, the nation is about 74% Christian, it's natural that Christian indoctrination/teachings would give a woman who is considering an abortion pause before making a decision.
Click to expand...

Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

Check out the abortion clock.  40 million abortions this year alone?  Imagine if we had 40 million extra humans consuming our resources.  Thank god for abortions and wars and Chicago

'TRAUMATIZED CITY': More Than 50 People Shot In Chicago During Christmas Holiday | The Huffington Post


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> Well, for you educated folks the first rule of biology is that it takes life to produce life. Life doesn't come from something that is not alive itself. Now, all you need do is figure out what or who was alive first.



You do realize us, the planets, moons, meteors and comets all come from stars, right?  So I would agree because stars seem to be "alive".  They are certainly not dead.  

But what created those stars?  Was it something "alive"  How alive?  Alive like you and me or alive like a sun is alive?  Because we came from a sun that died billions of years ago.  

Most likely the stars came from something that is "alive" just like stars are alive.  

So do you think suns think?  They are alive and we came from them this is true.  But did they design us intelligently?


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> another example of a mindless debauchery ... human x being, the 4th century bible and modern society.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> other than the disparity within that number who might even own a bible who do not disagree your post has what to do with christianities history of oppression and bloodshed ... something sane people work to remedy as is the Commandment from the Almighty than the disingenuous that strive to repeat the past for their own self-centered and pseudo well being.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree the number is high. Many who own Bibles never open them and read them. I think the question was asked and many responded without being totally honest.
Click to expand...


I read the bible.  It didn't move me.  It seemed like scattered thoughts and ramblings of a cult.  Were there some nice messages in it?  Sure.  But it was all over the place and I doubt very many people who read the bible understand it in fact many who are addicted to religion say they had to read it several times and each sentence can be translated a different way.  Was that on purpose?


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for you educated folks the first rule of biology is that it takes life to produce life. Life doesn't come from something that is not alive itself. Now, all you need do is figure out what or who was alive first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize us, the planets, moons, meteors and comets all come from stars, right?  So I would agree because stars seem to be "alive".  They are certainly not dead.
> 
> But what created those stars?  Was it something "alive"  How alive?  Alive like you and me or alive like a sun is alive?  Because we came from a sun that died billions of years ago.
> 
> Most likely the stars came from something that is "alive" just like stars are alive.
> 
> So do you think suns think?  They are alive and we came from them this is true.  But did they design us intelligently?
Click to expand...


I asked you super intelligent science folks to explain it. I didn't ask for a bunch of "do you thinks"?


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> another example of a mindless debauchery ... human x being, the 4th century bible and modern society.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> other than the disparity within that number who might even own a bible who do not disagree your post has what to do with christianities history of oppression and bloodshed ... something sane people work to remedy as is the Commandment from the Almighty than the disingenuous that strive to repeat the past for their own self-centered and pseudo well being.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree the number is high. Many who own Bibles never open them and read them. I think the question was asked and many responded without being totally honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the bible.  It didn't move me.  It seemed like scattered thoughts and ramblings of a cult.  Were there some nice messages in it?  Sure.  But it was all over the place and I doubt very many people who read the bible understand it in fact many who are addicted to religion say they had to read it several times and each sentence can be translated a different way.  Was that on purpose?
Click to expand...


You have my permission to believe or to not believe whatever you wish if that is what you are asking for.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> another example of a mindless debauchery ... human x being, the 4th century bible and modern society.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> other than the disparity within that number who might even own a bible who do not disagree your post has what to do with christianities history of oppression and bloodshed ... something sane people work to remedy as is the Commandment from the Almighty than the disingenuous that strive to repeat the past for their own self-centered and pseudo well being.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree the number is high. Many who own Bibles never open them and read them. I think the question was asked and many responded without being totally honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the bible.  It didn't move me.  It seemed like scattered thoughts and ramblings of a cult.  Were there some nice messages in it?  Sure.  But it was all over the place and I doubt very many people who read the bible understand it in fact many who are addicted to religion say they had to read it several times and each sentence can be translated a different way.  Was that on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have my permission to believe or to not believe whatever you wish if that is what you are asking for.
Click to expand...

Yes. And while you are filling requests, keep your silly invisible man stuff out of my government for example on things like abortion and science and anything that requires logic without magical thinking factored in


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 74% of Americans apparently disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> other than the disparity within that number who might even own a bible who do not disagree your post has what to do with christianities history of oppression and bloodshed ... something sane people work to remedy as is the Commandment from the Almighty than the disingenuous that strive to repeat the past for their own self-centered and pseudo well being.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree the number is high. Many who own Bibles never open them and read them. I think the question was asked and many responded without being totally honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the bible.  It didn't move me.  It seemed like scattered thoughts and ramblings of a cult.  Were there some nice messages in it?  Sure.  But it was all over the place and I doubt very many people who read the bible understand it in fact many who are addicted to religion say they had to read it several times and each sentence can be translated a different way.  Was that on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have my permission to believe or to not believe whatever you wish if that is what you are asking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And while you are filling requests, keep your silly invisible man stuff out of my government for example on things like abortion and science and anything that requires logic without magical thinking factored in
Click to expand...


Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> other than the disparity within that number who might even own a bible who do not disagree your post has what to do with christianities history of oppression and bloodshed ... something sane people work to remedy as is the Commandment from the Almighty than the disingenuous that strive to repeat the past for their own self-centered and pseudo well being.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the number is high. Many who own Bibles never open them and read them. I think the question was asked and many responded without being totally honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the bible.  It didn't move me.  It seemed like scattered thoughts and ramblings of a cult.  Were there some nice messages in it?  Sure.  But it was all over the place and I doubt very many people who read the bible understand it in fact many who are addicted to religion say they had to read it several times and each sentence can be translated a different way.  Was that on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have my permission to believe or to not believe whatever you wish if that is what you are asking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And while you are filling requests, keep your silly invisible man stuff out of my government for example on things like abortion and science and anything that requires logic without magical thinking factored in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?
Click to expand...


*Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God*

*But 21%, near the 40-year high, consider it fables and history


*


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
Click to expand...


28% of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally.  This is below the 40% seen in the 70s.  

But about half of Americans continue to say the Bible is the _inspired_ word of God, not to be taken literally -- meaning a combined 75% believe the Bible is in some way connected to God. 

About one in five Americans view the Bible in purely secular terms -- as ancient fables, legends, history, and precepts written by man -- which is up from 13% in 1976.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the number is high. Many who own Bibles never open them and read them. I think the question was asked and many responded without being totally honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the bible.  It didn't move me.  It seemed like scattered thoughts and ramblings of a cult.  Were there some nice messages in it?  Sure.  But it was all over the place and I doubt very many people who read the bible understand it in fact many who are addicted to religion say they had to read it several times and each sentence can be translated a different way.  Was that on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have my permission to believe or to not believe whatever you wish if that is what you are asking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And while you are filling requests, keep your silly invisible man stuff out of my government for example on things like abortion and science and anything that requires logic without magical thinking factored in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God*
> 
> *But 21%, near the 40-year high, consider it fables and history*
Click to expand...


So, I suppose you are attempting to now claim somehow that these three in four are not part of the governed people of the United States and only you non-believers are?


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the bible.  It didn't move me.  It seemed like scattered thoughts and ramblings of a cult.  Were there some nice messages in it?  Sure.  But it was all over the place and I doubt very many people who read the bible understand it in fact many who are addicted to religion say they had to read it several times and each sentence can be translated a different way.  Was that on purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have my permission to believe or to not believe whatever you wish if that is what you are asking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And while you are filling requests, keep your silly invisible man stuff out of my government for example on things like abortion and science and anything that requires logic without magical thinking factored in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God*
> 
> *But 21%, near the 40-year high, consider it fables and history*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I suppose you are attempting to now claim somehow that these three in four are not part of the governed people of the United States and only you non-believers are?
Click to expand...

I wish.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have my permission to believe or to not believe whatever you wish if that is what you are asking for.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And while you are filling requests, keep your silly invisible man stuff out of my government for example on things like abortion and science and anything that requires logic without magical thinking factored in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God*
> 
> *But 21%, near the 40-year high, consider it fables and history*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I suppose you are attempting to now claim somehow that these three in four are not part of the governed people of the United States and only you non-believers are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish.
Click to expand...


You're really being disappointed about a lot of things lately aren't you?  Poor baby.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And while you are filling requests, keep your silly invisible man stuff out of my government for example on things like abortion and science and anything that requires logic without magical thinking factored in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God*
> 
> *But 21%, near the 40-year high, consider it fables and history*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I suppose you are attempting to now claim somehow that these three in four are not part of the governed people of the United States and only you non-believers are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really being disappointed about a lot of things lately aren't you?  Poor baby.
Click to expand...


Nah I'm ok.  It's my turn.  It'll be your turn again in 2-12 years.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is not proof we are evolving. The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression. Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and also, for him he believes 4th century christianity are the gods to believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> much the same as the Terrapin hatchlings to the Seagulls along the oceans edge - the Almighty's is a carnivorous Garden.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I would euthanize a severely retarded baby that was just born. But I'm Greek. My Spartan ancestors would have thrown it in the pit of death
Click to expand...

Of course you would.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What makes people better people is not rationalizing they are doing right when they are doing wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but lots of Christians get abortions too. So many of them that we made it legal despite what the religious right says about it being murder.
> 
> I think you know the difference between these women and real murderers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you making a two wrongs makes a right argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think getting an abortion is wrong? I mean I get it that that seed would grow to be a human but whats the problem with removing the seed before it matures?
> 
> Republicans are going to do a lot to abortion. Limit the number of clinics that perform them, make it a 2 month cut off, etc.
> 
> So if someone removes the seed 5 weeks in, who told you this is bad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's bad.  That's why women agonize over the decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They agonize over miscarriages too but their child didn't die. That's why no funeral or burial site
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the fact that it is wrong to do.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> all beings have consciousness, there is no more or less morality for atheist than pseudo religious worshiping a false 4th century book or those honestly believing in an Almighty as the final entitlement is accomplished solely by their ability to distinguish correctly between good and evil. the Everlasting is not without variety.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and also, for him he believes 4th century christianity are the gods to believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> much the same as the Terrapin hatchlings to the Seagulls along the oceans edge - the Almighty's is a carnivorous Garden.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I would euthanize a severely retarded baby that was just born. But I'm Greek. My Spartan ancestors would have thrown it in the pit of death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zika babies may convert a lot of Christians and/or Republicans to reconsidering their stance on abortion prior to 24 weeks.  Many such birth defects and diseases can be detected prior to the 24 week period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean prior to 24 weeks or past 24 weeks?  And did you mean CAN'T be detected prior to 24 weeks or can it be detected?  I'd abort my zika baby.
Click to expand...

24 weeks is the common limit on abortions.  Many diseases and problems can be detected before that limit is reached.  People don't have to wait until birth to see if a baby is defective.  

Diagnosis | Birth Defects | NCBDDD | CDC


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28% of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally.  This is below the 40% seen in the 70s.
> 
> But about half of Americans continue to say the Bible is the _inspired_ word of God, not to be taken literally -- meaning a combined 75% believe the Bible is in some way connected to God.
> 
> About one in five Americans view the Bible in purely secular terms -- as ancient fables, legends, history, and precepts written by man -- which is up from 13% in 1976.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you believed in God you would know that it is wrong to end a human life.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person. The one example is abortion. To us its not murder but it is ending a life. I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want but I'm sure if the Abraham God existed he wouldn't approve.
> 
> But heck even Christians get abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and also, for him he believes 4th century christianity are the gods to believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I myself don't think life is that precious we should force women to have a baby they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> much the same as the Terrapin hatchlings to the Seagulls along the oceans edge - the Almighty's is a carnivorous Garden.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I would euthanize a severely retarded baby that was just born. But I'm Greek. My Spartan ancestors would have thrown it in the pit of death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zika babies may convert a lot of Christians and/or Republicans to reconsidering their stance on abortion prior to 24 weeks.  Many such birth defects and diseases can be detected prior to the 24 week period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean prior to 24 weeks or past 24 weeks?  And did you mean CAN'T be detected prior to 24 weeks or can it be detected?  I'd abort my zika baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 24 weeks is the common limit on abortions.  Many diseases and problems can be detected before that limit is reached.  People don't have to wait until birth to see if a baby is defective.
> 
> Diagnosis | Birth Defects | NCBDDD | CDC
Click to expand...


Republicans want to make it 8 weeks.


----------



## Divine Wind

the_human_being said:


> Well, for you educated folks the first rule of biology is that it takes life to produce life. Life doesn't come from something that is not alive itself. Now, all you need do is figure out what or who was alive first.


That's a "as far as we know" answer.  If mankind can never use technology to create life, that would really be something.  OTOH, if mankind could create life using technology, does that mean the Almighty doesn't exist? Of course not.  It also doesn't mean we're anything close to becoming God.  

Given that, your question is not as important as you think it is.  If it was, and mankind does create life, that would put your religious beliefs into question.


----------



## Divine Wind

ding said:


> Maybe if you believed in God you would know that it is wrong to end a human life.


So we should disband our military and ban all weapons? Ban the death penalty.  If what you say is true, then that's exactly what we should do.  

OTOH, if it's okay to kill human beings under certain circumstances, then that opens up an entirely different line of conversation.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> Republicans want to make it 8 weeks.


Again, Zika infected Republicans may change that concept.   A few Zika infected people walking around prominent Republican neighbors and letting themselves be mosquito bitten may speed up the process.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 103897
> 
> 
> 
> I just found a 2005 poll said something like 60% Americans take the bible literally. Today 23% do. Proof we are evolving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  That is not proof we are evolving.  The last stage of evolution is the evolution of consciousness. It's called the morality progression.  Atheists are excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28% of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally.  This is below the 40% seen in the 70s.
> 
> But about half of Americans continue to say the Bible is the _inspired_ word of God, not to be taken literally -- meaning a combined 75% believe the Bible is in some way connected to God.
> 
> About one in five Americans view the Bible in purely secular terms -- as ancient fables, legends, history, and precepts written by man -- which is up from 13% in 1976.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe if you believed in God you would know that it is wrong to end a human life.
Click to expand...


The use of the term "murder" requires that a person has been killed. A fetus is not a person or even an entity; it's just a collection of cells in a woman's body. If that woman wants to allow those cells to develop until they have become organized enough to be a person, that's her choice. If she wants to remove this part of her body before it develops further into a separate entity, that's her choice also.

If she chooses abortion, then no person has been killed since no person exists at that point, therefore no murder can have been committed.

So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.

There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want to make it 8 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Zika infected Republicans may change that concept.   A few Zika infected people walking around prominent Republican neighbors and letting themselves be mosquito bitten may speed up the process.
Click to expand...


That's right.  Would they really want to raise Beatlejuice?


----------



## Taz

God is for people who can't run their own lives.


----------



## the_human_being

Divine.Wind said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for you educated folks the first rule of biology is that it takes life to produce life. Life doesn't come from something that is not alive itself. Now, all you need do is figure out what or who was alive first.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a "as far as we know" answer.  If mankind can never use technology to create life, that would really be something.  OTOH, if mankind could create life using technology, does that mean the Almighty doesn't exist? Of course not.  It also doesn't mean we're anything close to becoming God.
> 
> Given that, your question is not as important as you think it is.  If it was, and mankind does create life, that would put your religious beliefs into question.
Click to expand...


If pigs could fly, we could use them in the military.


----------



## BreezeWood

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> other than the disparity within that number who might even own a bible who do not disagree your post has what to do with christianities history of oppression and bloodshed ... something sane people work to remedy as is the Commandment from the Almighty than the disingenuous that strive to repeat the past for their own self-centered and pseudo well being.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the number is high. Many who own Bibles never open them and read them. I think the question was asked and many responded without being totally honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the bible.  It didn't move me.  It seemed like scattered thoughts and ramblings of a cult.  Were there some nice messages in it?  Sure.  But it was all over the place and I doubt very many people who read the bible understand it in fact many who are addicted to religion say they had to read it several times and each sentence can be translated a different way.  Was that on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have my permission to believe or to not believe whatever you wish if that is what you are asking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And while you are filling requests, keep your silly invisible man stuff out of my government for example on things like abortion and science and anything that requires logic without magical thinking factored in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?
Click to expand...

.


the_human_being said:


> Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?




the above is an endorsement of just how far our nation has matured in the last 8 years -   

since when did christians ever think they did not own everything in sight and were strictly controlled by their beliefs alone ... they have squirmed for 8 years to redeem their lost shield and used abortion to proselytize a value for themselves that does not exist.

it will be interesting to see if they have learned anything at all or simply whittled away their opportunity to gain insight to the true meaning of a free society, under law.

.


----------



## Divine Wind

the_human_being said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for you educated folks the first rule of biology is that it takes life to produce life. Life doesn't come from something that is not alive itself. Now, all you need do is figure out what or who was alive first.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a "as far as we know" answer.  If mankind can never use technology to create life, that would really be something.  OTOH, if mankind could create life using technology, does that mean the Almighty doesn't exist? Of course not.  It also doesn't mean we're anything close to becoming God.
> 
> Given that, your question is not as important as you think it is.  If it was, and mankind does create life, that would put your religious beliefs into question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If pigs could fly, we could use them in the military.
Click to expand...

And send them to fight ISIS.


----------



## the_human_being

BreezeWood said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree the number is high. Many who own Bibles never open them and read them. I think the question was asked and many responded without being totally honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the bible.  It didn't move me.  It seemed like scattered thoughts and ramblings of a cult.  Were there some nice messages in it?  Sure.  But it was all over the place and I doubt very many people who read the bible understand it in fact many who are addicted to religion say they had to read it several times and each sentence can be translated a different way.  Was that on purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have my permission to believe or to not believe whatever you wish if that is what you are asking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. And while you are filling requests, keep your silly invisible man stuff out of my government for example on things like abortion and science and anything that requires logic without magical thinking factored in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not just YOUR government. It is written, "Government by the people, for the people, and OF the people". Christians, the last time I checked, were people too. I would suggest you learn to live with opposing views. Perhaps, grow up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the above is an endorsement of just how far our nation has matured in the last 8 years -
> 
> since when did christians ever think they did not own everything in sight and were strictly controlled by their beliefs alone ... they have squirmed for 8 years to redeem their lost shield and used abortion to proselytize a value for themselves that does not exist.
> 
> it will be interesting to see if they have learned anything at all or simply whittled away their opportunity to gain insight to the true meaning of a free society, under law.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually, it was the Christians who were instrumental in electing a President to return us to a free society.


----------



## Divine Wind

BreezeWood said:


> ....*since when did christians ever think they did not own everything in sight and were strictly controlled by their beliefs alone *... they have squirmed for 8 years to redeem their lost shield and used abortion to proselytize a value for themselves that does not exist.
> 
> *it will be interesting to see if they have learned anything at all* or simply whittled away their opportunity to gain insight to the true meaning of a free society, under law..


You're broadbrushing of all Christians is interesting, and proves you are no better than those you accuse.  It's no different than someone calling all atheists lying sadists who are secretly Satanists.  Just because a few are doesn't mean all are.  

The "Christians" to which you are referring are a very loud minority.  If you attack all because of a few, all you will succeed in doing is causing more Christians to flock to their side against fucking broadbrushing assholes.


----------



## BreezeWood

Divine.Wind said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....*since when did christians ever think they did not own everything in sight and were strictly controlled by their beliefs alone *... they have squirmed for 8 years to redeem their lost shield and used abortion to proselytize a value for themselves that does not exist.
> 
> *it will be interesting to see if they have learned anything at all* or simply whittled away their opportunity to gain insight to the true meaning of a free society, under law..
> 
> 
> 
> You're broadbrushing of all Christians is interesting, and proves you are no better than those you accuse.  It's no different than someone calling all atheists lying sadists who are secretly Satanists.  Just because a few are doesn't mean all are.
> 
> The "Christians" to which you are referring are a very loud minority.  If you attack all because of a few, all you will succeed in doing is causing more Christians to flock to their side against fucking broadbrushing assholes.
Click to expand...

. 


Divine.Wind said:


> The "Christians" to which you are referring are a very loud minority. If you attack all because of a few, all you will succeed in doing is causing more Christians to flock to their side against fucking broadbrushing assholes.




10/4, thanks you give me hope they may not all be the same ... history dictates otherwise, that your "loud minority" will not have it their way. think of A H (Hitler) and who he enabled.

it will be interesting the maturity of our nation and whether it will stand fast against the coming storm.

.


----------



## Divine Wind

BreezeWood said:


> 10/4, thanks you give me hope they may not all be the same ... history dictates otherwise, that your "loud minority" will not have it their way. think of A H (Hitler) and who he enabled.
> 
> it will be interesting the maturity of our nation and whether it will stand fast against the coming storm.
> 
> .


History shows our nation has weathered storms far more severe than anything we're facing today.  In fact, the old farts on this forum like myself can remember the 1960s were far worse than today's issues.


----------



## BreezeWood

Divine.Wind said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10/4, thanks you give me hope they may not all be the same ... history dictates otherwise, that your "loud minority" will not have it their way. think of A H (Hitler) and who he enabled.
> 
> it will be interesting the maturity of our nation and whether it will stand fast against the coming storm.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> History shows our nation has weathered storms far more severe than anything we're facing today.  In fact, the old farts on this forum like myself can remember the 1960s were far worse than today's issues.
Click to expand...

.

the disparity was different in the 60's, that is what will be interesting in the coming events. I remember Nixon's epitaph, " there's little chance putting the paste back in the tube ". it will be their mission.

.


----------



## Divine Wind

BreezeWood said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10/4, thanks you give me hope they may not all be the same ... history dictates otherwise, that your "loud minority" will not have it their way. think of A H (Hitler) and who he enabled.
> 
> it will be interesting the maturity of our nation and whether it will stand fast against the coming storm.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> History shows our nation has weathered storms far more severe than anything we're facing today.  In fact, the old farts on this forum like myself can remember the 1960s were far worse than today's issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> the disparity was different in the 60's, that is what will be interesting in the coming events. I remember Nixon's epitaph, " there's little chance putting the paste back in the tube ". it will be their mission.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That's my point.  The 60s were much worse than we see today.  A lot of people were dying both stateside and abroad, the threat of WWIII was real and the country was in actual turmoil, not just annoyed.


----------



## BreezeWood

Divine.Wind said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10/4, thanks you give me hope they may not all be the same ... history dictates otherwise, that your "loud minority" will not have it their way. think of A H (Hitler) and who he enabled.
> 
> it will be interesting the maturity of our nation and whether it will stand fast against the coming storm.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> History shows our nation has weathered storms far more severe than anything we're facing today.  In fact, the old farts on this forum like myself can remember the 1960s were far worse than today's issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> the disparity was different in the 60's, that is what will be interesting in the coming events. I remember Nixon's epitaph, " there's little chance putting the paste back in the tube ". it will be their mission.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my point.  The 60s were much worse than we see today.  A lot of people were dying both stateside and abroad, the threat of WWIII was real and the country was in actual turmoil, not just annoyed.
Click to expand...

.


Divine.Wind said:


> That's my point. The 60s were much worse than we see today. A lot of people were dying both stateside and abroad, the threat of WWIII was real and the country was in actual turmoil, not just annoyed.


.
your optimism is refreshing even if misguided as the coming onslaught against women in particular may not be a concern of yours it will materially affect the lives of many people unnecessarily and directed by your "vocal minority" for some time to come. and the "annoyance" of withholding the Constitutionally mandated choice for the Supreme Court as a supplement for the religious minority by politicians is unjustified by any measure you may offer.

but I agree the demographics are forever changed by the election in 2008 and the ensuing 8 years even with the sever polarized political climate that resulted. also my posts were directed particularly at those polarized individuals though your position has decidedly altered my perspective regarding Christianity. again thanks.

.


----------



## Divine Wind

BreezeWood said:


> your optimism is refreshing even if misguided as the coming onslaught against women in particular may not be a concern of yours it will materially affect the lives of many people unnecessarily and directed by your "vocal minority" for some time to come. and the "annoyance" of withholding the Constitutionally mandated choice for the Supreme Court as a supplement for the religious minority by politicians is unjustified by any measure you may offer.
> 
> but I agree the demographics are forever changed by the election in 2008 and the ensuing 8 years even with the sever polarized political climate that resulted. also my posts were directed particularly at those polarized individuals though your position has decidedly altered my perspective regarding Christianity. again thanks..


Insult all you want, claim conspiracy theories and "The END IS NEAR" all day long, but the fact remains the world is getting better even if some people only see the negative in it.   Human nature hasn't changed for over tens generations, if not tens of thousands of years.  Homo Sapiens see many being negative, a few being positive and some just seeing things the way they are.  If you want to be in the negative crowd, go for it since it's both easy and common.  I lean toward optimism but am enough of a realist to know,  that certain things take time to happen.


----------



## BreezeWood

Divine.Wind said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your optimism is refreshing even if misguided as the coming onslaught against women in particular may not be a concern of yours it will materially affect the lives of many people unnecessarily and directed by your "vocal minority" for some time to come. and the "annoyance" of withholding the Constitutionally mandated choice for the Supreme Court as a supplement for the religious minority by politicians is unjustified by any measure you may offer.
> 
> but I agree the demographics are forever changed by the election in 2008 and the ensuing 8 years even with the sever polarized political climate that resulted. also my posts were directed particularly at those polarized individuals though your position has decidedly altered my perspective regarding Christianity. again thanks..
> 
> 
> 
> Insult all you want, claim conspiracy theories and "The END IS NEAR" all day long, but the fact remains the world is getting better even if some people only see the negative in it.   Human nature hasn't changed for over tens generations, if not tens of thousands of years.  Homo Sapiens see many being negative, a few being positive and some just seeing things the way they are.  If you want to be in the negative crowd, go for it since it's both easy and common.  I lean toward optimism but am enough of a realist to know,  that certain things take time to happen.
Click to expand...

.


Divine.Wind said:


> Insult all you want, claim conspiracy theories and "The END IS NEAR" all day long, but the fact remains the world is getting better even if some people only see the negative in it. Human nature hasn't changed for over tens generations, if not tens of thousands of years. Homo Sapiens see many being negative, a few being positive and some just seeing things the way they are. If you want to be in the negative crowd, go for it since it's both easy and common. I lean toward optimism but am enough of a realist to know, that certain things take time to happen.




the followers of literary works including the biased 4th century bible have little to reward themselves for why " the world is getting better " and far more to do with why it has taken so long if not the cause of what needed to be rectified - and yes the present attempt to role back the clock will not be easy for them as the pendulum is decidedly far stronger today than at any other time in history.

.


----------



## Divine Wind

BreezeWood said:


> the followers of literary works including the biased 4th century bible have little to reward themselves for why " the world is getting better " and far more to do with why it has taken so long if not the cause of what needed to be rectified - and yes the present attempt to role back the clock will not be easy for them as the pendulum is decidedly far stronger today than at any other time in history.
> 
> .


Hmmmm.....not quite following your personal agenda, except the negative part, of course.  Lots of Christians I know are happy and look forward to raising happy children.


----------



## BreezeWood

Divine.Wind said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the followers of literary works including the biased 4th century bible have little to reward themselves for why " the world is getting better " and far more to do with why it has taken so long if not the cause of what needed to be rectified - and yes the present attempt to role back the clock will not be easy for them as the pendulum is decidedly far stronger today than at any other time in history.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....not quite following your personal agenda, except the negative part, of course.  Lots of Christians I know are happy and look forward to raising happy children.
Click to expand...

.


Divine.Wind said:


> Hmmmm.....not quite following your personal agenda, except the negative part, of course. Lots of Christians I know are happy and look forward to raising happy children.




your agenda not mine, the past obsessions of your religion and instead working for the betterment of all beings than proselytizing about a few without cause.

.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Ding is suggesting believing in God makes him a better person.



Believing in God did make me a better person.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> All three of them are atheists who are ashamed of admitting they are atheists so they claim to be agnostics or humanists but argue against belief in God at every turn.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you believe? I thought were smarter than that.
> 
> For one, so what if I don't believe in God? Does it make me a bad person? Am I going to hell? Why do you believe belief is important?
> 
> And I don't believe a God exists. Nothing wrong with believing that, is there? Also nothing wrong with you believing there is as long as it's not hurting anyone. I believe religion is a lie that's holding us back.
> 
> So I'm not ashamed to admit I don't believe. Calling myself an agnostic atheist means I've recognized that in order for me to know a God doesn't exist I would have to be one myself. So anyone who says they are agnostic is just admitting there is no way to know.
> 
> So in a way, if you were being honest too, you'd admit you are an agnostic theist because you don't know either.
> 
> Unless you believe a religion that claims God visited. Then you might believe God literally wrote the bible. We have members here who believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I believe that you are afraid or embarrassed  to unconditionally admit that you are an atheist even though all you ever do is argue against belief in God.  You don't act like an agnostic atheist.  You act like an atheist.   You don't believe in God.  Face it, you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes thank you! It's theists that make me have to admit I can't know so I can't truly be an atheist. In that sense I'm just being honest and admitting I don't know. When I say I'm an agnostic atheist I'm being nice and giving in. I'm not being stubborn or acting like I know there isn't a creator.
> 
> But everything tells me there is no God. And if there is he didn't visit. He isn't the character that visited Mary mo Jo or moses. He doesn't care if you believe and doesn't send people who don't believe Mary Jo mo or mo to hell. That I'm certain as can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't act like you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to be a God yourself because God could be anywhere in our universe or even outside our universe tending to his other potatoes in his garden of universes.
> 
> The point I want to make is it doesn't matter if you believe because that kind of petty God is soooo man made. If there's a god be nice and you'll have a conversation with him in the end.
> 
> Funny thing is I will confidently defend myself when I meet your God. You'll be embarrassed for jacking off not me.
> 
> And I'm not a thief murderer or liar.
> 
> Well, I've lied. 2 out of 3 ain't bad
Click to expand...

No.  You would not have to be a god yourself.  You just need to be objective.  

I don't believe in that kind of a petty God.  That's how you see God.  

Trust me, when your time comes, you will be singing a different tune.  When everyone fails you and you fail yourself, you will have no where else to turn.


----------



## Divine Wind

BreezeWood said:


> your agenda not mine, the past obsessions of your religion and instead working for the betterment of all beings than proselytizing about a few without cause..


Now you are running from your own comments.  Interesting.

Okay, let's go in this new direction you seek to go:  What is my agenda and my "religion"?  Please quote me where you claim I've proselytized.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...



Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.



RWS said:


> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.



Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated. 



RWS said:


> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".



First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> That "intervention" could very well be "God" popping his face onto the worldwide sky and saying "Here I am! Now you know! Believe in _<insert religion here>_ or I will smite you all!"
> 
> That would certainly work!!
> 
> But a bit more likely would be... aliens arriving and teaching us far more advanced concepts of spirituality and the universe, before we blow ourselves up over petty lies.


You have been given the rarest gift of all.  It is sad that you don't appreciate it more.


----------



## BreezeWood

Divine.Wind said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your agenda not mine, the past obsessions of your religion and instead working for the betterment of all beings than proselytizing about a few without cause..
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are running from your own comments.  Interesting.
> 
> Okay, let's go in this new direction you seek to go:  What is my agenda and my "religion"?  Please quote me where you claim I've proselytized.
Click to expand...

.


Divine.Wind said:


> Please quote me where you claim I've proselytized.



+


Divine.Wind said:


> Lots of Christians I know are happy and look forward to raising happy children.



.


----------



## Divine Wind

BreezeWood said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your agenda not mine, the past obsessions of your religion and instead working for the betterment of all beings than proselytizing about a few without cause..
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are running from your own comments.  Interesting.
> 
> Okay, let's go in this new direction you seek to go:  What is my agenda and my "religion"?  Please quote me where you claim I've proselytized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote me where you claim I've proselytized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> +
> 
> 
> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of Christians I know are happy and look forward to raising happy children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

LOL.  Can't do it, can you?  No worries.  Please continue with your misconceptions.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you believe? I thought were smarter than that.
> 
> For one, so what if I don't believe in God? Does it make me a bad person? Am I going to hell? Why do you believe belief is important?
> 
> And I don't believe a God exists. Nothing wrong with believing that, is there? Also nothing wrong with you believing there is as long as it's not hurting anyone. I believe religion is a lie that's holding us back.
> 
> So I'm not ashamed to admit I don't believe. Calling myself an agnostic atheist means I've recognized that in order for me to know a God doesn't exist I would have to be one myself. So anyone who says they are agnostic is just admitting there is no way to know.
> 
> So in a way, if you were being honest too, you'd admit you are an agnostic theist because you don't know either.
> 
> Unless you believe a religion that claims God visited. Then you might believe God literally wrote the bible. We have members here who believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe that you are afraid or embarrassed  to unconditionally admit that you are an atheist even though all you ever do is argue against belief in God.  You don't act like an agnostic atheist.  You act like an atheist.   You don't believe in God.  Face it, you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes thank you! It's theists that make me have to admit I can't know so I can't truly be an atheist. In that sense I'm just being honest and admitting I don't know. When I say I'm an agnostic atheist I'm being nice and giving in. I'm not being stubborn or acting like I know there isn't a creator.
> 
> But everything tells me there is no God. And if there is he didn't visit. He isn't the character that visited Mary mo Jo or moses. He doesn't care if you believe and doesn't send people who don't believe Mary Jo mo or mo to hell. That I'm certain as can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't act like you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to be a God yourself because God could be anywhere in our universe or even outside our universe tending to his other potatoes in his garden of universes.
> 
> The point I want to make is it doesn't matter if you believe because that kind of petty God is soooo man made. If there's a god be nice and you'll have a conversation with him in the end.
> 
> Funny thing is I will confidently defend myself when I meet your God. You'll be embarrassed for jacking off not me.
> 
> And I'm not a thief murderer or liar.
> 
> Well, I've lied. 2 out of 3 ain't bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You would not have to be a god yourself.  You just need to be objective.
> 
> I don't believe in that kind of a petty God.  That's how you see God.
> 
> Trust me, when your time comes, you will be singing a different tune.  When everyone fails you and you fail yourself, you will have no where else to turn.
Click to expand...

I've seen atheists die and I've seen how theists react to people dying. As much as I'll be afraid and want there to be a heaven, I just don't believe.

If I meet God I'll thank him for the wonderful life


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> I've seen atheists die and I've seen how theists react to people dying. As much as I'll be afraid and want there to be a heaven, I just don't believe.
> 
> If I meet God I'll thank him for the wonderful life


How do atheists react to people dying?  Soylent Green?  A wood chipper and a compost pile?

Since there are about 5 Billion "theists", and that's not counting those who simply have "_spiritual_" beliefs of an afterlife, you're cutting a very broad brush in claiming to know what "theists" think about people dying.

What's amusing to me is that it takes the same amount of energy to "disbelieve" as it does to believe.  Both are based on faith and there is no scientific test (yet!) to prove either way.  IMHO, atheists are akin to a HS student working extra hard to cheat on a test in order to avoid studying for it. 

The Global Religious Landscape


----------



## sealybobo

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen atheists die and I've seen how theists react to people dying. As much as I'll be afraid and want there to be a heaven, I just don't believe.
> 
> If I meet God I'll thank him for the wonderful life
> 
> 
> 
> How do atheists react to people dying?  Soylent Green?  A wood chipper and a compost pile?
> 
> Since there are about 5 Billion "theists", and that's not counting those who simply have "_spiritual_" beliefs of an afterlife, you're cutting a very broad brush in claiming to know what "theists" think about people dying.
> 
> What's amusing to me is that it takes the same amount of energy to "disbelieve" as it does to believe.  Both are based on faith and there is no scientific test (yet!) to prove either way.  IMHO, atheists are akin to a HS student working extra hard to cheat on a test in order to avoid studying for it.
> 
> The Global Religious Landscape
Click to expand...

I can't help but to believe the truth is better than fiction.

Its OK you believe there's a creator. Is that all you believe? Seems benign enough. 

And I'm just telling you what I believe. Can't I be passionate about what I believe? What harm am I causing telling people what I think? Are you afraid of opposing views?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe that you are afraid or embarrassed  to unconditionally admit that you are an atheist even though all you ever do is argue against belief in God.  You don't act like an agnostic atheist.  You act like an atheist.   You don't believe in God.  Face it, you are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes thank you! It's theists that make me have to admit I can't know so I can't truly be an atheist. In that sense I'm just being honest and admitting I don't know. When I say I'm an agnostic atheist I'm being nice and giving in. I'm not being stubborn or acting like I know there isn't a creator.
> 
> But everything tells me there is no God. And if there is he didn't visit. He isn't the character that visited Mary mo Jo or moses. He doesn't care if you believe and doesn't send people who don't believe Mary Jo mo or mo to hell. That I'm certain as can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't act like you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to be a God yourself because God could be anywhere in our universe or even outside our universe tending to his other potatoes in his garden of universes.
> 
> The point I want to make is it doesn't matter if you believe because that kind of petty God is soooo man made. If there's a god be nice and you'll have a conversation with him in the end.
> 
> Funny thing is I will confidently defend myself when I meet your God. You'll be embarrassed for jacking off not me.
> 
> And I'm not a thief murderer or liar.
> 
> Well, I've lied. 2 out of 3 ain't bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You would not have to be a god yourself.  You just need to be objective.
> 
> I don't believe in that kind of a petty God.  That's how you see God.
> 
> Trust me, when your time comes, you will be singing a different tune.  When everyone fails you and you fail yourself, you will have no where else to turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen atheists die and I've seen how theists react to people dying. As much as I'll be afraid and want there to be a heaven, I just don't believe.
> 
> If I meet God I'll thank him for the wonderful life
Click to expand...

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

Why waste your life trying to fight and argue with Almighty God?

"Do you believe in a personal God?"

Christian values

Has science proved there is no God?

How do the non-spiritual explain it?

Why do the God-haters persist?

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

Christian values

Do gods exist?

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.     Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.     For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.     And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32 ESV)


----------



## Tuatara

ding said:


> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.


Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.


----------



## Tuatara

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That "intervention" could very well be "God" popping his face onto the worldwide sky and saying "Here I am! Now you know! Believe in _<insert religion here>_ or I will smite you all!"
> 
> That would certainly work!!
> 
> But a bit more likely would be... aliens arriving and teaching us far more advanced concepts of spirituality and the universe, before we blow ourselves up over petty lies.
> 
> 
> 
> You have been given the rarest gift of all.  It is sad that you don't appreciate it more.
Click to expand...

What gift is that ? Please explain?


----------



## ding

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That "intervention" could very well be "God" popping his face onto the worldwide sky and saying "Here I am! Now you know! Believe in _<insert religion here>_ or I will smite you all!"
> 
> That would certainly work!!
> 
> But a bit more likely would be... aliens arriving and teaching us far more advanced concepts of spirituality and the universe, before we blow ourselves up over petty lies.
> 
> 
> 
> You have been given the rarest gift of all.  It is sad that you don't appreciate it more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gift is that ? Please explain?
Click to expand...

Beings that know and create are the rarest and most precious gift in the universe.  Beings that know and create are the most complex creation in all of creation.  You could have been a rock instead.


----------



## ding

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
Click to expand...

Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.

Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.


----------



## Divine Wind

sealybobo said:


> I can't help but to believe the truth is better than fiction.
> 
> Its OK you believe there's a creator. Is that all you believe? Seems benign enough.
> 
> And I'm just telling you what I believe. Can't I be passionate about what I believe? What harm am I causing telling people what I think? Are you afraid of opposing views?


Agreed about truth over fiction.

I believe there is more to existence then meets the eye.  I certainly believe we're more than mobile meat computers running around only according to our programming. 

No worries about your beliefs and I appreciate opposing views.  Like everyone else, you are free to believe as you wish and to state those beliefs.  It's my freedom to call out anyone who claims they know for a fact their beliefs are correct and everyone else's are wrong.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes thank you! It's theists that make me have to admit I can't know so I can't truly be an atheist. In that sense I'm just being honest and admitting I don't know. When I say I'm an agnostic atheist I'm being nice and giving in. I'm not being stubborn or acting like I know there isn't a creator.
> 
> But everything tells me there is no God. And if there is he didn't visit. He isn't the character that visited Mary mo Jo or moses. He doesn't care if you believe and doesn't send people who don't believe Mary Jo mo or mo to hell. That I'm certain as can be
> 
> 
> 
> You don't act like you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to be a God yourself because God could be anywhere in our universe or even outside our universe tending to his other potatoes in his garden of universes.
> 
> The point I want to make is it doesn't matter if you believe because that kind of petty God is soooo man made. If there's a god be nice and you'll have a conversation with him in the end.
> 
> Funny thing is I will confidently defend myself when I meet your God. You'll be embarrassed for jacking off not me.
> 
> And I'm not a thief murderer or liar.
> 
> Well, I've lied. 2 out of 3 ain't bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You would not have to be a god yourself.  You just need to be objective.
> 
> I don't believe in that kind of a petty God.  That's how you see God.
> 
> Trust me, when your time comes, you will be singing a different tune.  When everyone fails you and you fail yourself, you will have no where else to turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen atheists die and I've seen how theists react to people dying. As much as I'll be afraid and want there to be a heaven, I just don't believe.
> 
> If I meet God I'll thank him for the wonderful life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Why waste your life trying to fight and argue with Almighty God?
> 
> "Do you believe in a personal God?"
> 
> Christian values
> 
> Has science proved there is no God?
> 
> How do the non-spiritual explain it?
> 
> Why do the God-haters persist?
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Christian values
> 
> Do gods exist?
> 
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.     Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.     For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.     And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32 ESV)
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly _perceiv__ed_, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.




nothing concrete nor mention of the desert religion's written scriptures ...


_*and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!*_

there is a good reason their scriptures are not referenced from etchings of the time ...


_*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.*_

is the above perceived by christians, absorbed by reading their book or is there evidence they can verify their religion is truthful,  or - - > *and *(they)* exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man.

.
*
*.*


----------



## Tuatara

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.
Click to expand...

This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.



> Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.


Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.



> Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.


Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances. 




> Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.


I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.



> Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility


Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility. 


> Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility.


Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.



> Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.


Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
Click to expand...

Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't act like you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to be a God yourself because God could be anywhere in our universe or even outside our universe tending to his other potatoes in his garden of universes.
> 
> The point I want to make is it doesn't matter if you believe because that kind of petty God is soooo man made. If there's a god be nice and you'll have a conversation with him in the end.
> 
> Funny thing is I will confidently defend myself when I meet your God. You'll be embarrassed for jacking off not me.
> 
> And I'm not a thief murderer or liar.
> 
> Well, I've lied. 2 out of 3 ain't bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You would not have to be a god yourself.  You just need to be objective.
> 
> I don't believe in that kind of a petty God.  That's how you see God.
> 
> Trust me, when your time comes, you will be singing a different tune.  When everyone fails you and you fail yourself, you will have no where else to turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen atheists die and I've seen how theists react to people dying. As much as I'll be afraid and want there to be a heaven, I just don't believe.
> 
> If I meet God I'll thank him for the wonderful life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Why waste your life trying to fight and argue with Almighty God?
> 
> "Do you believe in a personal God?"
> 
> Christian values
> 
> Has science proved there is no God?
> 
> How do the non-spiritual explain it?
> 
> Why do the God-haters persist?
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Christian values
> 
> Do gods exist?
> 
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.     Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.     For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.     And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32 ESV)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly _perceiv__ed_, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nothing concrete nor mention of the desert religion's written scriptures ...
> 
> 
> _*and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!*_
> 
> there is a good reason their scriptures are not referenced from etchings of the time ...
> 
> 
> _*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> is the above perceived by christians, absorbed by reading their book or is there evidence they can verify their religion is truthful,  or - - > *and *(they)* exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man.
> 
> .
> *
> *.*
Click to expand...


It's quotes like "_*No one comes to the Father except through me." that tell me Christianity is just another cult.*_


----------



## sealybobo

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
> 25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
> Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.
Click to expand...


Great point.  Ding wrote:  Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.

Do USMB Christians think that's how they come off?  Because they don't.


----------



## sealybobo

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
> 25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
> Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.
Click to expand...


Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. 

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?
Click to expand...

Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?

You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.


----------



## ding

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
> 25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
> Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.
Click to expand...

Path not taken, amigo.  You are comparing an idealized world that never existed.  It would have been worse, trust me.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't act like you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to be a God yourself because God could be anywhere in our universe or even outside our universe tending to his other potatoes in his garden of universes.
> 
> The point I want to make is it doesn't matter if you believe because that kind of petty God is soooo man made. If there's a god be nice and you'll have a conversation with him in the end.
> 
> Funny thing is I will confidently defend myself when I meet your God. You'll be embarrassed for jacking off not me.
> 
> And I'm not a thief murderer or liar.
> 
> Well, I've lied. 2 out of 3 ain't bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You would not have to be a god yourself.  You just need to be objective.
> 
> I don't believe in that kind of a petty God.  That's how you see God.
> 
> Trust me, when your time comes, you will be singing a different tune.  When everyone fails you and you fail yourself, you will have no where else to turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen atheists die and I've seen how theists react to people dying. As much as I'll be afraid and want there to be a heaven, I just don't believe.
> 
> If I meet God I'll thank him for the wonderful life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Why waste your life trying to fight and argue with Almighty God?
> 
> "Do you believe in a personal God?"
> 
> Christian values
> 
> Has science proved there is no God?
> 
> How do the non-spiritual explain it?
> 
> Why do the God-haters persist?
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Christian values
> 
> Do gods exist?
> 
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.     Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.     For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.     And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32 ESV)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly _perceiv__ed_, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nothing concrete nor mention of the desert religion's written scriptures ...
> 
> 
> _*and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!*_
> 
> there is a good reason their scriptures are not referenced from etchings of the time ...
> 
> 
> _*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> is the above perceived by christians, absorbed by reading their book or is there evidence they can verify their religion is truthful,  or - - > *and *(they)* exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man.
> 
> .
> *
> *.*
Click to expand...

What exactly is your point?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to be a God yourself because God could be anywhere in our universe or even outside our universe tending to his other potatoes in his garden of universes.
> 
> The point I want to make is it doesn't matter if you believe because that kind of petty God is soooo man made. If there's a god be nice and you'll have a conversation with him in the end.
> 
> Funny thing is I will confidently defend myself when I meet your God. You'll be embarrassed for jacking off not me.
> 
> And I'm not a thief murderer or liar.
> 
> Well, I've lied. 2 out of 3 ain't bad
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You would not have to be a god yourself.  You just need to be objective.
> 
> I don't believe in that kind of a petty God.  That's how you see God.
> 
> Trust me, when your time comes, you will be singing a different tune.  When everyone fails you and you fail yourself, you will have no where else to turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen atheists die and I've seen how theists react to people dying. As much as I'll be afraid and want there to be a heaven, I just don't believe.
> 
> If I meet God I'll thank him for the wonderful life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Why waste your life trying to fight and argue with Almighty God?
> 
> "Do you believe in a personal God?"
> 
> Christian values
> 
> Has science proved there is no God?
> 
> How do the non-spiritual explain it?
> 
> Why do the God-haters persist?
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Christian values
> 
> Do gods exist?
> 
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.     Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.     For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.     And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32 ESV)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly _perceiv__ed_, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nothing concrete nor mention of the desert religion's written scriptures ...
> 
> 
> _*and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!*_
> 
> there is a good reason their scriptures are not referenced from etchings of the time ...
> 
> 
> _*Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.*_
> 
> is the above perceived by christians, absorbed by reading their book or is there evidence they can verify their religion is truthful,  or - - > *and *(they)* exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man.
> 
> .
> *
> *.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly is your point?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> What exactly is your point?



*
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
*

the latter part of the quote is a fallacy in truth whether made up in the 4th century or by Jesus makes no difference. its desired meaning is the reason for the destructive history of christianity over centuries by those that wrote it. to distort the message from antiquity meant as a guidance for humanity.

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  - makes Jesus no less a martyr were the true story ever told.

.
*

*


----------



## Tuatara

...continued


ding said:


> Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings.


How do regular community gatherings install a sense of wonder in nature and the universe. Do people go to church to talk about Quasars, white dwarfs and Black Holes and describe in intricate detail developments of animal behaviour or fauna and flora through botany?



> Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together.


Unless you are not part of their clique. Not one of the residents Christians attended the winter solstice celebration here. Join their religion and they are open arms. If you don't you might as well be a leper.



> Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness.


By dropping bombs on nations that have people from mostly other religions.



> Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility.


Yet most Christians do not practice these traits as observed here in the forums and in real life. Do you think a real Christian would actually vote for the likes of someone like Donald Trump or George Bush? 


> Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill


By telling them they are going to see the big sky daddy in Heaven. All religions promise a better world after death. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on that. Sometimes the best comfort for the terminally ill is the "humane" practice of assisted suicide.


> and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed.


 What if it is the Christians doing the oppression?
[/QUOTE]Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves.[/QUOTE] You mean into another gender. Or perhaps another sexual persuasion? Or to another religion? Or to give up Religion. These would certainly be considered transforming oneself.

[/QUOTE]That it is possible to change for the better.[/QUOTE]Was somebody advocating against personal growth. That we should stay exactly like we were when we were 15.



> Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.


Some, not all Christian values were borrowed from previous religions and cultures. Some Christian values like slavery and corporal punishment are fading. Some Christians values never materialized, like stoning to death those who work on Sundays or those who wear 2 types of cloth.



> No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life.


Oh dear, the catholic church. Watch this
or this



> The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.


 It was the same religion that brought slavery to the Western Civilization. It's even mentioned in their fallible holy book. You've seen the quotes.

[/QUOTE]Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians.[/QUOTE]Yes, all religions did that. Even non-religions. [/QUOTE]Christianity gave us America.[/QUOTE]Ahh, NO. Christianity isn't even mentioned. Most of the founding fathers were deists. Not Christians. Read their quotes.
Founding Father Quotes on Religion



> They were a  Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world.


Non Christians have done the same. Please try again.

[/QUOTE]Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII.[/QUOTE]
Yes, some Christians were Nazis and fascists. What is the point? Christians fought along every other religion and non-religion in WW2.
[/QUOTE]Christians put a man on the moon [/QUOTE]Many of the members of NASA were atheists and agnostics. There were also many other religions present in employees of NASA.
[/QUOTE]and ended the cold war.[/QUOTE]It seems to be escalating again. I don't think the cold war ended out of religious ideologies but from political and economic traits.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
> 25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
> Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been my observation on these boards and in life in general.


----------



## ding

Tuatara said:


> ...continued
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings.
> 
> 
> 
> How do regular community gatherings install a sense of wonder in nature and the universe. Do people go to church to talk about Quasars, white dwarfs and Black Holes and describe in intricate detail developments of animal behaviour or fauna and flora through botany?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless you are not part of their clique. Not one of the residents Christians attended the winter solstice celebration here. Join their religion and they are open arms. If you don't you might as well be a leper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By dropping bombs on nations that have people from mostly other religions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet most Christians do not practice these traits as observed here in the forums and in real life. Do you think a real Christian would actually vote for the likes of someone like Donald Trump or George Bush?
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By telling them they are going to see the big sky daddy in Heaven. All religions promise a better world after death. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on that. Sometimes the best comfort for the terminally ill is the "humane" practice of assisted suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if it is the Christians doing the oppression?
Click to expand...

Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves.[/QUOTE] You mean into another gender. Or perhaps another sexual persuasion? Or to another religion? Or to give up Religion. These would certainly be considered transforming oneself.

[/QUOTE]That it is possible to change for the better.[/QUOTE]Was somebody advocating against personal growth. That we should stay exactly like we were when we were 15.



> Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon.


Some, not all Christian values were borrowed from previous religions and cultures. Some Christian values like slavery and corporal punishment are fading. Some Christians values never materialized, like stoning to death those who work on Sundays or those who wear 2 types of cloth.



> No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life.


Oh dear, the catholic church. Watch this
or this



> The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.


 It was the same religion that brought slavery to the Western Civilization. It's even mentioned in their fallible holy book. You've seen the quotes.

[/QUOTE]Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians.[/QUOTE]Yes, all religions did that. Even non-religions. [/QUOTE]Christianity gave us America.[/QUOTE]Ahh, NO. Christianity isn't even mentioned. Most of the founding fathers were deists. Not Christians. Read their quotes.
Founding Father Quotes on Religion



> They were a  Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world.


Non Christians have done the same. Please try again.

[/QUOTE]Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII.[/QUOTE]
Yes, some Christians were Nazis and fascists. What is the point? Christians fought along every other religion and non-religion in WW2.
[/QUOTE]Christians put a man on the moon [/QUOTE]Many of the members of NASA were atheists and agnostics. There were also many other religions present in employees of NASA.
[/QUOTE]and ended the cold war.[/QUOTE]It seems to be escalating again. I don't think the cold war ended out of religious ideologies but from political and economic traits.[/QUOTE]
I think you have a few issues, brother.


----------



## RWS

sealybobo said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could use religion to make a terrorist or I could make someone into mother Theresa using religion. Either way I could lie and create a religious person.
> 
> Do I need religion to make a good person? No. In fact lots of Americans raise good people without religion.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already said, Socialism is a religion that is very closely related to two Christian religions, one of which we have a holiday for, minus the "god". The goal of socialism is
> to get to Communism, rather than Heaven. And of course, the goal is unattainable, but people are forced to strive and obey their rulers regardless, and the rulers keep making more money and power, while never letting the truth be known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism intentionally denies examination. In fact there is no formal defined dogma. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. The genesis of the first socialist doctrines were reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism is diametrically opposed between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.
> 
> Socialism acts like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it.
> 
> Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn -- A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978
> 
> The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except believing socialism is bad I agree. Some things should be socialized.
> 
> Or properly regulated.
Click to expand...


I agree that Communism is potentially good, though I don't know if humans can really live that way over a prolonged time. Socialism is the way that they told people is necessary in getting there, and they successfully fooled their followers into thinking that they will eventually get there. But the people won't.... Because the ones in power will never willingly give up their power and be a common person, which is what is necessary for Communism. Greed is too mighty to ignore.


----------



## RWS

the_human_being said:


> Well, for you educated folks the first rule of biology is that it takes life to produce life. Life doesn't come from something that is not alive itself. Now, all you need do is figure out what or who was alive first.


I don't know about that rule, honestly... 

What we consider "life" is up for debate, but at its core, it's a replicating molecule.

Of course, the more advanced stages of "life" require others to continue. But the initial RNA-like molecules that configured by chance, and started drawing other atoms towards it to bind, based on chemistry, until such point where they would split, was the beginning of the machine of replication that we call life. That started about 3.5 billion years ago. And those life forms did not need another life form to have sexy-time with... They just did it by themselves.... (the perverts)


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
Click to expand...


lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.


----------



## RWS

We need a Jewish person to post here, and set ding straight about religious superiority.


----------



## Media_Truth

Godly people wouldn't watch FOX News.  FOX News lies!  FOX News lies!  FOX News lies!  FOX News lies!  FOX News lies!  FOX News lies!  FOX News lies!  FOX News lies!  FOX News lies!  FOX News lies!


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> I agree that Communism is potentially good,



I rest my case.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
Click to expand...

No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
Click to expand...

Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.

I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Communism is potentially good,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Religion is a communist system. One powerful person at the top, and everyone under them is a loser who needs to be saved by the system that they'll feed.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.
> 
> I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.
Click to expand...

Yep, we are all broken human beings.  Some more than others.  You prove that on a daily basis.  Not to worry His spirit is still inside of you pruning you.  Be patient.  It is a work in progress.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Communism is potentially good,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is a communist system. One powerful person at the top, and everyone under them is a loser who needs to be saved by the system that they'll feed.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do see it that way.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.
> 
> I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, we are all broken human beings.  Some more than others.  You prove that on a daily basis.  Not to worry His spirit is still inside of you pruning you.  Be patient.  It is a work in progress.
Click to expand...

This must be how god wants me to be, otherwise he would have changed me/led me down a different path.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Communism is potentially good,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is a communist system. One powerful person at the top, and everyone under them is a loser who needs to be saved by the system that they'll feed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you do see it that way.
Click to expand...

That's what it is, the guy at the top tells you what and how to think. Otherwise, maybe you're not even a Catholic. Just a faker like all the rest.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
> 25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
> Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That hasn't been my observation on these boards and in life in general.
Click to expand...

How come China never swallowed the Jesus story? Paul went to Greece and conned my ancestors. Why didn't like or John go con the Asians? Or did they try unsuccessfully?

We all know Asians are smart. Maybe they are too smart for the abrahamic religions


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
> 25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
> Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That hasn't been my observation on these boards and in life in general.
Click to expand...

Yea but remember you believe in invisible men who care about you and has a heaven waiting. I wouldn't trust your observation. Lol

And didn't someone just block you? Are Christians taught to be rude? Lol. PS. I think you are a great guy. I can't believe someone blocked you. You weren't being a dick. Id say you won that one. The guy got so frustrated be blocked you.


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I believe a world devoid religion would look like... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I already said, Socialism is a religion that is very closely related to two Christian religions, one of which we have a holiday for, minus the "god". The goal of socialism is
> to get to Communism, rather than Heaven. And of course, the goal is unattainable, but people are forced to strive and obey their rulers regardless, and the rulers keep making more money and power, while never letting the truth be known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism intentionally denies examination. In fact there is no formal defined dogma. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. The genesis of the first socialist doctrines were reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism is diametrically opposed between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.
> 
> Socialism acts like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it.
> 
> Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn -- A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978
> 
> The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except believing socialism is bad I agree. Some things should be socialized.
> 
> Or properly regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that Communism is potentially good, though I don't know if humans can really live that way over a prolonged time. Socialism is the way that they told people is necessary in getting there, and they successfully fooled their followers into thinking that they will eventually get there. But the people won't.... Because the ones in power will never willingly give up their power and be a common person, which is what is necessary for Communism. Greed is too mighty to ignore.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you say the same thing about capitalism?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
Click to expand...

Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
Click to expand...

.


sealybobo said:


> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive




what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.

.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Ding is trying to say his morals are set in stone and mine are whatever makes us feel good at the moment.

I think that is wonderful. What's a problem now in our society today might not be a problem in our society 1000 years from now. Humans may evolve into creatures who don't mind us banging each other's wives. Or maybe we will be so oppressed you have to steal and lie to get by. Or maybe Sundays in the future will be the best day to work. I like a flexible society.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ding is trying to say his morals are set in stone and mine are whatever makes us feel good at the moment.
> 
> I think that is wonderful. What's a problem now in our society today might not be a problem in our society 1000 years from now. Humans may evolve into creatures who don't mind us banging each other's wives. Or maybe we will be so oppressed you have to steal and lie to get by. Or maybe Sundays in the future will be the best day to work. I like a flexible society.
Click to expand...

Human nature has not changed in 10,000 years. You are just setting yourself up for a predictable surprise. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.  You should know this.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
Click to expand...

They stopped burning them because they realized that they were not witches.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
Click to expand...


Liberals will soon be fair game though. In about 20 more days.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals will soon be fair game though. In about 20 more days.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard I'm a Republican now?

Is Putin going to let the world know who sealybobo is thru wikileaks? Is Russia going to help you out us? Then I'm going to donate $5 to trump just to cover my bases.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals will soon be fair game though. In about 20 more days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you heard I'm a Republican now?
> 
> Is Putin going to let the world know who sealybobo is thru wikileaks? Is Russia going to help you out us? Then I'm going to donate $5 to trump just to cover my bases.
Click to expand...



You need to send your money to me. Donald Trump has been helping me start a new business. I have entered into an agreement with Old Nick to operate the Bottled Water Concession in Hell. Being the humanitarian that I am, I knew my atheist friends would want some insurance or a hedge against their being totally wrong about the consequences of their unbelief. 

I will be accepting prepayment for regular deliveries of Florida Bottled Water taken directly from the discharge of our nuclear power plant in Tampa. This crystal water has served to cool the nuclear centrifuges and the radiation has killed all bacteria and living organisms. This fine refreshing water can be purchased for the low introductory price of just $1.50 per 12 ounce serving. Atheists such as yourself can lay away a stockpile of bottled water now by prepayment in United States funds.

I will be following up shortly with a line of fireproof underwear. We will use asbestos as the prime material since EPA regulations will be waived and since most EPA officials will be in Hell anyways.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals will soon be fair game though. In about 20 more days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you heard I'm a Republican now?
> 
> Is Putin going to let the world know who sealybobo is thru wikileaks? Is Russia going to help you out us? Then I'm going to donate $5 to trump just to cover my bases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to send your money to me. Donald Trump has been helping me start a new business. I have entered into an agreement with Old Nick to operate the Bottled Water Concession in Hell. Being the humanitarian that I am, I knew my atheist friends would want some insurance or a hedge against their being totally wrong about the consequences of their unbelief.
> 
> I will be accepting prepayment for regular deliveries of Florida Bottled Water taken directly from the discharge of our nuclear power plant in Tampa. This crystal water has served to cool the nuclear centrifuges and the radiation has killed all bacteria and living organisms. This fine refreshing water can be purchased for the low introductory price of just $1.50 per 12 ounce serving. Atheists such as yourself can lay away a stockpile of bottled water now by prepayment in United States funds.
> 
> I will be following up shortly with a line of fireproof underwear. We will use asbestos as the prime material since EPA regulations will be waived and since most EPA officials will be in Hell anyways.
Click to expand...

How do you type with a straight jacket on?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.











like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.

.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.
> 
> I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, we are all broken human beings.  Some more than others.  You prove that on a daily basis.  Not to worry His spirit is still inside of you pruning you.  Be patient.  It is a work in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This must be how god wants me to be, otherwise he would have changed me/led me down a different path.
Click to expand...

If you say so.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Communism is potentially good,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is a communist system. One powerful person at the top, and everyone under them is a loser who needs to be saved by the system that they'll feed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you do see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what it is, the guy at the top tells you what and how to think. Otherwise, maybe you're not even a Catholic. Just a faker like all the rest.
Click to expand...

I'm happy enough for you to believe anything you want about me or God.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
> 25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
> Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That hasn't been my observation on these boards and in life in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come China never swallowed the Jesus story? Paul went to Greece and conned my ancestors. Why didn't like or John go con the Asians? Or did they try unsuccessfully?
> 
> We all know Asians are smart. Maybe they are too smart for the abrahamic religions
Click to expand...

You will have to ask them.  

What Is The Future Of Religion? - When Will China Become the World’s Largest Christian Country?


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 104499
> 
> 
> 
> like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.


----------



## Dr Grump

the_human_being said:


> You need to send your money to me. Donald Trump has been helping me start a new business. I have entered into an agreement with Old Nick to operate the Bottled Water Concession in Hell. Being the humanitarian that I am, I knew my atheist friends would want some insurance or a hedge against their being totally wrong about the consequences of their unbelief.
> 
> I will be accepting prepayment for regular deliveries of Florida Bottled Water taken directly from the discharge of our nuclear power plant in Tampa. This crystal water has served to cool the nuclear centrifuges and the radiation has killed all bacteria and living organisms. This fine refreshing water can be purchased for the low introductory price of just $1.50 per 12 ounce serving. Atheists such as yourself can lay away a stockpile of bottled water now by prepayment in United States funds.
> 
> I will be following up shortly with a line of fireproof underwear. We will use asbestos as the prime material since EPA regulations will be waived and since most EPA officials will be in Hell anyways.



IF you're going to go into business with Trump, you'd be more successful trying to open a pussy-grabbing enterprise. He claims to be an expert in the practice.


----------



## the_human_being

Dr Grump said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to send your money to me. Donald Trump has been helping me start a new business. I have entered into an agreement with Old Nick to operate the Bottled Water Concession in Hell. Being the humanitarian that I am, I knew my atheist friends would want some insurance or a hedge against their being totally wrong about the consequences of their unbelief.
> 
> I will be accepting prepayment for regular deliveries of Florida Bottled Water taken directly from the discharge of our nuclear power plant in Tampa. This crystal water has served to cool the nuclear centrifuges and the radiation has killed all bacteria and living organisms. This fine refreshing water can be purchased for the low introductory price of just $1.50 per 12 ounce serving. Atheists such as yourself can lay away a stockpile of bottled water now by prepayment in United States funds.
> 
> I will be following up shortly with a line of fireproof underwear. We will use asbestos as the prime material since EPA regulations will be waived and since most EPA officials will be in Hell anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF you're going to go into business with Trump, you'd be more successful trying to open a pussy-grabbing enterprise. He claims to be an expert in the practice.
Click to expand...


Not at all. My market research has provided an enormous amount of data that shows I will have a yuuuuuuuuge customer base of very thirsty atheists and other Liberals.


----------



## Dr Grump

the_human_being said:


> Not at all. My market research has provided an enormous amount of data that shows I will have a yuuuuuuuuge customer base of very thirsty atheists and other Liberals.



I dunno. 62 million deplorables voted for the Orange One. That's one hell of a base...


----------



## the_human_being

Dr Grump said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. My market research has provided an enormous amount of data that shows I will have a yuuuuuuuuge customer base of very thirsty atheists and other Liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. 62 million deplorables voted for the Orange One. That's one hell of a base...
Click to expand...


Oh, those will be drinking living water in Paradise.


----------



## Dr Grump

the_human_being said:


> Oh, those will be drinking living water in Paradise.



'living water' AKA KoolAid...


----------



## the_human_being

Dr Grump said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, those will be drinking living water in Paradise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'living water' AKA KoolAid...
Click to expand...


How many cases of my bottled water should I put you down for?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 104499
> 
> 
> 
> like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.





> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia




they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.




ding said:


> They were pieces of shit.



can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.


.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I no longer think it's OK to burn witches alive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 104499
> 
> 
> 
> like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 104499
> 
> 
> 
> like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
Click to expand...

.







ding said:


> The free spirits hated women. Free spirits could take any woman they wanted. Free spirits were reprehensible people.




you have it backwards bing, they were christians, jews and islamist ... the gal is a Free Spirit that despite their effort, yours and humanx lives today. stay your faith, keep trying the bible is your shield.

.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
> 25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
> Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility.
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That hasn't been my observation on these boards and in life in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come China never swallowed the Jesus story? Paul went to Greece and conned my ancestors. Why didn't like or John go con the Asians? Or did they try unsuccessfully?
> 
> We all know Asians are smart. Maybe they are too smart for the abrahamic religions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to ask them.
> 
> What Is The Future Of Religion? - When Will China Become the World’s Largest Christian Country?
Click to expand...

Oh no even them?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> what those who read the bible hate the most is a Free Spirit, whatever that is they hate it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 104499
> 
> 
> 
> like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the us military's record on how women are treated. We let our boys rape women and get away with it.

Or how we didn't imprison any priests who molested kids. The Catholic Church transferred them to other parashes where they could rape again. 

I'm glad you have a holy book of absolute right and wrong. Now if your Christian nation would live by those rules it'd be great.

As an atheist I don't need a holy book to tell me not to rape.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
Click to expand...


Again, you have it backwards. My morals never change. They are the same from birth. Or at least as far back as I can remember....

And it is to never kill or hurt another person, unless I am physically attacked first. 

That's not the way religion has rolled, throughout history. And there's a simple reason why. Let's say there are 100 followers of someone promoting a new religion, and that person is genuinely honest. That causes a lot of money to be raised, and necessitates the need for people to collect that money and hand it out as needed. However, there is never a true 100% transfer of donations to charities. The rulers take the money they need to survive and live to their means, and before death, pass along the money-making machine to their offspring or friends. But once the initial followers die of natural causes, the religion ends and the money stops flowing. So therefore, they must constantly try to convert more people into the religion to keep a constant cash-flow. 

And sometimes, the rate of peaceful converts is not enough to sustain that religion as it expands, should another religion attack. So they have to form a large enough army by forcibly creating new followers and/or slaves, since their initial 100 true followers will eventually die and they can't defend themselves. And when they can't convert them by their logic, they turn to threats of torture and death. If that fails, they go to slavery. 

Eventually when they have encompassed a large enough area, the newborn babies in that area will be brainwashed into that religion from birth. Since that is all they ever knew. So each generation develops a future army, to go out and kill and conquer for the financial benefit of their current religious ruler. Because the more they grow, the more difficult they are to defeat. And that ensures riches for the ones that promote the religions. 

God does not need money. God does not need worshipers. And he definitely doesn't need an army.... The people that tell you that God needs these things, are simply trying to fill their own coffers at the expense of the people who really need it. And they've been very successful at it, covering many religions, for well over 4000 years.


----------



## RWS

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Communism is potentially good,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is a communist system. One powerful person at the top, and everyone under them is a loser who needs to be saved by the system that they'll feed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you do see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what it is, the guy at the top tells you what and how to think. Otherwise, maybe you're not even a Catholic. Just a faker like all the rest.
Click to expand...



Exactly, "Communism" is "Heaven" to followers of Socialism (but not to the rulers). Of course that ideal would be very nice. But it's not possible because it doesn't exist. It's a made-up fantasy that they promise to their poor followers if they cooperate. While the rulers rack in tons of money... And in the case of Socialism, they will never let go, to allow Communism. In the case of religions, people just die, and can never go back and give a 0-star rating to their religion on Amazon...


----------



## Dr Grump

the_human_being said:


> How many cases of my bottled water should I put you down for?


None. I drink from the tap (faucet) of life...


----------



## RWS

sealybobo said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I already said, Socialism is a religion that is very closely related to two Christian religions, one of which we have a holiday for, minus the "god". The goal of socialism is
> to get to Communism, rather than Heaven. And of course, the goal is unattainable, but people are forced to strive and obey their rulers regardless, and the rulers keep making more money and power, while never letting the truth be known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism intentionally denies examination. In fact there is no formal defined dogma. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. The genesis of the first socialist doctrines were reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism is diametrically opposed between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.
> 
> Socialism acts like a religion which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. *They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. *Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it.
> 
> Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn -- A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978
> 
> The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except believing socialism is bad I agree. Some things should be socialized.
> 
> Or properly regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that Communism is potentially good, though I don't know if humans can really live that way over a prolonged time. Socialism is the way that they told people is necessary in getting there, and they successfully fooled their followers into thinking that they will eventually get there. But the people won't.... Because the ones in power will never willingly give up their power and be a common person, which is what is necessary for Communism. Greed is too mighty to ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Couldn't you say the same thing about capitalism?
Click to expand...


Yes, it could be potentially good. But again, the greedy have capitalized (forgive the pun) and it is no longer what it was initially meant to be.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not true. One needs to look no further than the Christians on this forum to see that this statement is completely false.
> 
> Charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man have been around long before Christianity was around. Most of the biggest corrupt charitable organizations have been Christian ones.
> 
> Another lie. In fact when we look at countries with the highest literacy rates we see that the countries with large Christian influence are absent from the list.
> 25 Countries With The Highest Literacy Rates
> Countries with the best healthcare and education for all and not just the rich show up on countries without Christian influence throughout every list polled.As for being the first source, this is misleading. We know Christian ministries will set up schools and shelters in third world countries but not without a price. People must convert to Christianity to usually get access to books, healthcare, clothing, toys and food in these instances.
> 
> 
> I don't think you would want to list orphanages with all the history of abuse conducted by those Christian protectors of children. Supporting Cultural outreaches?? Are you kidding me? Like how Christians supported the native population by taking their children away from their parents and placing them in residential schools where isolation, humiliation , denigration and abuse were widespread.
> 
> Not one Christian gets their morality and civility form the bible. It comes from other influences. This I can prove. Other nations where other religions and non-religion have more influence usually have the same morality and civility.
> Again, these traits were around long before Christianity. Loot at the huge amount of Christians and Christian leaders that have shown zero accountability and responsibility.
> 
> Because of time constraints I will argue these points later. Off to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That hasn't been my observation on these boards and in life in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come China never swallowed the Jesus story? Paul went to Greece and conned my ancestors. Why didn't like or John go con the Asians? Or did they try unsuccessfully?
> 
> We all know Asians are smart. Maybe they are too smart for the abrahamic religions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to ask them.
> 
> What Is The Future Of Religion? - When Will China Become the World’s Largest Christian Country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh no even them?
Click to expand...

Good thing you don't have a preference about what others choose, lol.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 104499
> 
> 
> 
> like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free spirits hated women. Free spirits could take any woman they wanted. Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have it backwards bing, they were christians, jews and islamist ... the gal is a Free Spirit that despite their effort, yours and humanx lives today. stay your faith, keep trying the bible is your shield.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No.  They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No go be a free spirit. Leave my spirit alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 104499
> 
> 
> 
> like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reminds me of the us military's record on how women are treated. We let our boys rape women and get away with it.
> 
> Or how we didn't imprison any priests who molested kids. The Catholic Church transferred them to other parashes where they could rape again.
> 
> I'm glad you have a holy book of absolute right and wrong. Now if your Christian nation would live by those rules it'd be great.
> 
> As an atheist I don't need a holy book to tell me not to rape.
Click to expand...

It was mainly a homosexual problem that ended back in the 80's, but don't let that get in the way of your confirmation bias of rape and pedifilia by ALL priests.  I wouldn't want you to gain any objectivity on this subject and disrupt the movie playing in your head.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Communism is potentially good,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is a communist system. One powerful person at the top, and everyone under them is a loser who needs to be saved by the system that they'll feed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you do see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what it is, the guy at the top tells you what and how to think. Otherwise, maybe you're not even a Catholic. Just a faker like all the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, "Communism" is "Heaven" to followers of Socialism (but not to the rulers). Of course that ideal would be very nice. But it's not possible because it doesn't exist. It's a made-up fantasy that they promise to their poor followers if they cooperate. While the rulers rack in tons of money... And in the case of Socialism, they will never let go, to allow Communism. In the case of religions, people just die, and can never go back and give a 0-star rating to their religion on Amazon...
Click to expand...

Socialism can never refuse communism.  It is only a matter of time and failure.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> More links?!?
> 
> Did you take the time to read them this time, to make sure they're not falsifying your argument? I sure ain't gonna click 'em anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did.  I wouldn't expect you to be able stomach reading them and even if you could I wouldn't expect you to comprehend them.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your reply is EXACTLY what Christianity did. Minus the God part... Think Puritanism and Calvinism as easy examples. I'm not promoting Socialism either, it is equally bad due to coercing people to do bad things in the name of their "God" (god being government in Socialism). And Socialists killed millions of people due to their religion in the 20th century. Just showing you that Socialism is a religion, just as bad as Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Christianity has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.  You just can't be objective about it because you don't believe you can be wrong.  Your righteous indignation was only made possible by the high standards established by Judea/Christianity.  You are like the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.  You are like the goat who believes the other pasture is greener.  Path not taken.  Grow up in India or China and see how you would have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But atheists are not Socialists! Geez...
> 
> Just because people are atheist/agnostic, does not make them part of mother Russia! You sound like McCarthy at his peak!
> 
> People that are atheist/agnostic simply haven't been fooled by the snake-oil salesmen that have tried to embed themselves into our psyche from birth.
> 
> We're rational people, looking at an irrational society of religious lemmings killing each other over supernatural beings, and wondering where this craziness is going to lead us...
> 
> And I don't see it leading anywhere "good" for humanity, as it stands right now. I think the Earth could definitely use an "intervention".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you are not agnostic.  You are an atheist.  Maybe a borderline militant atheist.  Secondly, history and reason tells us the MILITANT atheism leads to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, whatever you want to classify me as, I can tell you one thing... I understand the nature of goodness more than you ever will, while you're trapped in your fantasies of religious superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  You don't.  Your morals are relative and can change.   You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you have it backwards. My morals never change. They are the same from birth. Or at least as far back as I can remember....
> 
> And it is to never kill or hurt another person, unless I am physically attacked first.
> 
> That's not the way religion has rolled, throughout history. And there's a simple reason why. Let's say there are 100 followers of someone promoting a new religion, and that person is genuinely honest. That causes a lot of money to be raised, and necessitates the need for people to collect that money and hand it out as needed. However, there is never a true 100% transfer of donations to charities. The rulers take the money they need to survive and live to their means, and before death, pass along the money-making machine to their offspring or friends. But once the initial followers die of natural causes, the religion ends and the money stops flowing. So therefore, they must constantly try to convert more people into the religion to keep a constant cash-flow.
> 
> And sometimes, the rate of peaceful converts is not enough to sustain that religion as it expands, should another religion attack. So they have to form a large enough army by forcibly creating new followers and/or slaves, since their initial 100 true followers will eventually die and they can't defend themselves. And when they can't convert them by their logic, they turn to threats of torture and death. If that fails, they go to slavery.
> 
> Eventually when they have encompassed a large enough area, the newborn babies in that area will be brainwashed into that religion from birth. Since that is all they ever knew. So each generation develops a future army, to go out and kill and conquer for the financial benefit of their current religious ruler. Because the more they grow, the more difficult they are to defeat. And that ensures riches for the ones that promote the religions.
> 
> God does not need money. God does not need worshipers. And he definitely doesn't need an army.... The people that tell you that God needs these things, are simply trying to fill their own coffers at the expense of the people who really need it. And they've been very successful at it, covering many religions, for well over 4000 years.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind if I see it differently.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is a communist system. One powerful person at the top, and everyone under them is a loser who needs to be saved by the system that they'll feed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you do see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what it is, the guy at the top tells you what and how to think. Otherwise, maybe you're not even a Catholic. Just a faker like all the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, "Communism" is "Heaven" to followers of Socialism (but not to the rulers). Of course that ideal would be very nice. But it's not possible because it doesn't exist. It's a made-up fantasy that they promise to their poor followers if they cooperate. While the rulers rack in tons of money... And in the case of Socialism, they will never let go, to allow Communism. In the case of religions, people just die, and can never go back and give a 0-star rating to their religion on Amazon...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism can never refuse communism.  It is only a matter of time and failure.
Click to expand...


You need to learn the order of things. 

They don't go in the way that your fantasies predict. As I quoted before, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

You need to choose whether you will continue to be a lemming, or, make a new path for yourself based on your faith. 

Regurgitating the terrible stuff your religion has caused, and trying to turn it into a positive, is not a good sign for your spiritual future. 

You're just a follower. Consider becoming a leader in something beneficial instead...


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.
> 
> I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, we are all broken human beings.  Some more than others.  You prove that on a daily basis.  Not to worry His spirit is still inside of you pruning you.  Be patient.  It is a work in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This must be how god wants me to be, otherwise he would have changed me/led me down a different path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you say so.
Click to expand...

Glad you agree. Good for you.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Communism is potentially good,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion is a communist system. One powerful person at the top, and everyone under them is a loser who needs to be saved by the system that they'll feed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you do see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what it is, the guy at the top tells you what and how to think. Otherwise, maybe you're not even a Catholic. Just a faker like all the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm happy enough for you to believe anything you want about me or God.
Click to expand...

It's how you project yourself to others. Pretty much as a fake Catholic. Because you obviously can't tell. You're welcome.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest force for good??? The religion that promotes slavery, bigotry, racism, witch burnings, the crusades, the holy wars, the inquisition... I could go on. Christianity also homophobic, misogynistic, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it preys on the ignorant, the innocent. It encourages acceptance of truly bad things while focusing on imaginary evils. There is way to many more to list. I will acknowledge that Christianity has done some good things for some individuals but as a whole it has done more harm.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.
> 
> I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, we are all broken human beings.  Some more than others.  You prove that on a daily basis.  Not to worry His spirit is still inside of you pruning you.  Be patient.  It is a work in progress.
Click to expand...

Why does god need to prune me? He fuck up when he made me the first time?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> View attachment 104499
> 
> 
> 
> like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reminds me of the us military's record on how women are treated. We let our boys rape women and get away with it.
> 
> Or how we didn't imprison any priests who molested kids. The Catholic Church transferred them to other parashes where they could rape again.
> 
> I'm glad you have a holy book of absolute right and wrong. Now if your Christian nation would live by those rules it'd be great.
> 
> As an atheist I don't need a holy book to tell me not to rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was mainly a homosexual problem that ended back in the 80's, but don't let that get in the way of your confirmation bias of rape and pedifilia by ALL priests.  I wouldn't want you to gain any objectivity on this subject and disrupt the movie playing in your head.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about how the church reacted to rapist priests. 

Your holy books of absolute right and wrong let you down. You guys do whatever makes you feel good too. If not then what is the official punishment for raping little boys? What does your holy book say we should do with the next pedophile priest?

And when will the USA, a supposedly Christian nation, start dealing with the men who rape women? What does your holy book say we should do with the next soldier who's a rapist?

Your holy book doesn't teach on these things.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> View attachment 104499
> 
> 
> 
> like you left hers alone, the Free Spirits you disdain.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free spirits hated women. Free spirits could take any woman they wanted. Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have it backwards bing, they were christians, jews and islamist ... the gal is a Free Spirit that despite their effort, yours and humanx lives today. stay your faith, keep trying the bible is your shield.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> No. They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.









the point bing the deceiver is they arrived to late the gal and all her friends died. funny how its after the fact you claim redemption, after your sins. christianity is indeed special.

.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free spirits hated women. Free spirits could take any woman they wanted. Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have it backwards bing, they were christians, jews and islamist ... the gal is a Free Spirit that despite their effort, yours and humanx lives today. stay your faith, keep trying the bible is your shield.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the point bing the deceiver is they arrived to late the gal and all her friends died. funny how its after the fact you claim redemption, after your sins. christianity is indeed special.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I thing Bing understands my original point. He thinks because of his religion his morals are set in stone but we see Christians have come a long way.

So have Jews by the way. There was a time when they crucified a guy just for saying he was gods sun. Would Jews kill someone for that today? Probably not


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free spirits hated women. Free spirits could take any woman they wanted. Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have it backwards bing, they were christians, jews and islamist ... the gal is a Free Spirit that despite their effort, yours and humanx lives today. stay your faith, keep trying the bible is your shield.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the point bing the deceiver is they arrived to late the gal and all her friends died. funny how its after the fact you claim redemption, after your sins. christianity is indeed special.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The Cathars should have perished sooner.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, greatest force for good.  Western Civilization was built upon the foundation of Christianity.
> 
> Christianity promotes the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness, humility, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience and kindness. Christianity is responsible for the creation of wonderful charities and organizations which serve the betterment of man. Christians and Christian institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.Christians and Christian institutions have been the source of abundant human services from hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, and schools, to advocacy on behalf of those with no voice, to supporting cultural outreaches, and seeking always to find ways in which to protect and promote human life and its authentic flourishing. Christianity gave us the concept of subsidiarity and has done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility Christianity teaches accountability and responsibility. Christianity teaches that we have a choice in how we behave and that actions have consequences. Christianity inspires a sense of wonder in nature and the universe and helps us feel connected to one another and to nature through regular community gatherings. Christianity helps us feel less alone in the world by binding the community together. Christianity serves to ennoble the human spirit and inspires love, peace and happiness. Christianity brings order to our lives by promoting the virtues of thankfulness, forgiveness and humility. Christianity brings comfort to the terminally ill and can act as a source of hope for the oppressed. Christianity teaches that we can transform ourselves. That it is possible to change for the better. Christian values were the foundation which Western Civilization was built upon. No other institution played a greater role in shaping Western Civilization than the Catholic Church. Modern science was born in the Catholic Church. Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market. The Catholic Church invented the university. Western law grew out of Church canon law. The Church humanized the West by insisting on the sacredness of all human life. The Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources. Religion gave us great thinkers, leaders and humanitarians. Christianity gave us America. Christianity gave us incredible artwork, music and architecture. Christianity has spread democracy throughout the world. Christians fought other Christians in WWII to end their aggression and rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII. Christians put a man on the moon and ended the cold war.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.
> 
> I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, we are all broken human beings.  Some more than others.  You prove that on a daily basis.  Not to worry His spirit is still inside of you pruning you.  Be patient.  It is a work in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does god need to prune me? He fuck up when he made me the first time?
Click to expand...

No.  your parents did.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars.  They were pieces of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean those reprehensible Cathars. They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition* (Spanish: _Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición_), commonly known as the *Spanish Inquisition* (_Inquisición española_), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. _*It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy*_ in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.
> Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were pieces of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reminds me of the us military's record on how women are treated. We let our boys rape women and get away with it.
> 
> Or how we didn't imprison any priests who molested kids. The Catholic Church transferred them to other parashes where they could rape again.
> 
> I'm glad you have a holy book of absolute right and wrong. Now if your Christian nation would live by those rules it'd be great.
> 
> As an atheist I don't need a holy book to tell me not to rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was mainly a homosexual problem that ended back in the 80's, but don't let that get in the way of your confirmation bias of rape and pedifilia by ALL priests.  I wouldn't want you to gain any objectivity on this subject and disrupt the movie playing in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about how the church reacted to rapist priests.
> 
> Your holy books of absolute right and wrong let you down. You guys do whatever makes you feel good too. If not then what is the official punishment for raping little boys? What does your holy book say we should do with the next pedophile priest?
> 
> And when will the USA, a supposedly Christian nation, start dealing with the men who rape women? What does your holy book say we should do with the next soldier who's a rapist?
> 
> Your holy book doesn't teach on these things.
Click to expand...

Sure it should have been handled better but it was mainly homosexual affairs. Not rape. And it wasn't little boys. It was teens.  But you believe whatever you want.


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.
> 
> I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, we are all broken human beings.  Some more than others.  You prove that on a daily basis.  Not to worry His spirit is still inside of you pruning you.  Be patient.  It is a work in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This must be how god wants me to be, otherwise he would have changed me/led me down a different path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Glad you agree. Good for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Happy new year.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> they and a few others and with humanx, bing and their crowd a new revival for their next notch in history. sadly for womanhood.
> 
> 
> can there be hope for bing ... red alert, calling humanx.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free spirits hated women. Free spirits could take any woman they wanted. Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have it backwards bing, they were christians, jews and islamist ... the gal is a Free Spirit that despite their effort, yours and humanx lives today. stay your faith, keep trying the bible is your shield.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the point bing the deceiver is they arrived to late the gal and all her friends died. funny how its after the fact you claim redemption, after your sins. christianity is indeed special.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Cathars should have perished sooner.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> The Cathars should have perished sooner.









2016, same book bing the deciever, tell us how you are any different ... since the 4th century its all been the same, you are the same - hating Free Spirits.

.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free spirits hated women.  Free spirits could take any woman they wanted.  Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free spirits hated women. Free spirits could take any woman they wanted. Free spirits were reprehensible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have it backwards bing, they were christians, jews and islamist ... the gal is a Free Spirit that despite their effort, yours and humanx lives today. stay your faith, keep trying the bible is your shield.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. They were reprehensible Cathars who got what they brought upon themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the point bing the deceiver is they arrived to late the gal and all her friends died. funny how its after the fact you claim redemption, after your sins. christianity is indeed special.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Cathars should have perished sooner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cathars should have perished sooner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016, same book bing the deciever, tell us how you are any different ... since the 4th century its all been the same, you are the same - hating Free Spirits.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Among the Cathars there were many different groups. Pope Innocent III counted as many as forty Cathar sects. In addition, there existed other sects that had many doctrinal points in common with the Cathars; among the best known were the Albigenses. They are all usually categorized as gnostic or Manichean heresies. In order to avoid unnecessary complexity, we shall describe the beliefs and notions common to all groups, without specifying the relative importance that a particular view might have in a given sect. (For a more detailed account, see 9 [Vol. I], 10, and 11.)  The basic contention in all branches of the movement was the belief in the irreconcilable contradiction between the physical world, seen as the source of evil, and the spiritual world, seen as the essence of good. The so-called dualistic Cathars believed this to be caused by the existence of two Gods--one good, the other evil. It was the God of evil who had created the physical world--the earth with everything that grows upon it, the sky, the sun and the stars, and human bodies as well. The good God, on the other hand, was seen as the creator of the spiritual world, in which there is another, spiritual sky, other stars and another sun. Other Cathars, called monarchian Cathars, believed in one beneficent God, the creator of the universe, but assumed that the physical world was the creation of his eldest, fallen son--Satan or Lucifer. All the Cathars held that the mutual hostility of the realms of matter and spirit allowed for no intermingling. They therefore denied the bodily incarnation of Christ (asserting that his body was a spiritual one, which had only the appearance of physicality) and the resurrection of the flesh. They saw a reflection of their dualism in the division of the Holy Scriptures into Old and New Testaments. They identified the God of the Old Testament, the creator of the physical world, with the evil God or with Lucifer. They professed the New Testament as the teaching of the good God.  The Cathars did not believe that God had created the world from nothing; they held that matter was eternal and that the world would have no end. So far as people were concerned, they considered their bodies to be the creation of the evil force. Their souls, though, did not have a single source. The souls of the majority of men, just like their bodies, were begotten by evil--such people had no hope for salvation and were doomed to perish when the entire material world returned to a state of primeval chaos. But the souls of some men had been created by the good God; these were the angels led into temptation by Lucifer and thus imprisoned in earthly bodies. As a result of changing into a series of bodies (Cathars believed in the transmigration of souls), they were destined to end up in their sect so as to receive liberation from the prison of matter. The ultimate goal and the ideal of all mankind was in principle universal suicide. This was conceived either as in the most direct sense (we shall encounter the practical realization of this .view later) or through ceasing to bear children.


----------



## RWS

If you obviously plagiarize something, you should provide the source. Not post it as your own creation.

You seem to have to turn to quickly googling a subject and either pasting the link without reading it (which has failed you), or posting content of a link without reference. Which again fails you here.

This signals desperation on your side.

There is no need for desperation. Simply ask why people may think differently than you do, and listen to them. And do not put them down because they think that way. You may actually learn something. And if you have questions of how your faiths may exist, just ask them. You need to let go of this superiority complex that "religion from birth" gave you. It's not helping anybody...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> If you obviously plagiarize something, you should provide the source. Not post it as your own creation.
> 
> You seem to have to turn to quickly googling a subject and either pasting the link without reading it (which has failed you), or posting content of a link without reference. Which again fails you here.
> 
> This signals desperation on your side.
> 
> There is no need for desperation. Simply ask why people may think differently than you do, and listen to them. And do not put them down because they think that way. You may actually learn something. And if you have questions of how your faiths may exist, just ask them. You need to let go of this superiority complex that "religion from birth" gave you. It's not helping anybody...


The Socialist Phenomenon by Alexander Shafarevich.  It's probably over your head.  The post was made to show how reprehensible the Free Spirits were that he so greatly admires.  

You worry about what you post and I'll worry about what I post, Ok?  If I want your advice, I'll ask.  Fair enough?


----------



## RWS

You're like the fake news stories that are proliferating around the internet. You have no idea what you post. You just put it out there, in hopes that nobody reads it and just accepts it as proof of your gibberish. Have you ever read anything that you have wrote?

First of all... His name was Igor!

Tell me, what do you understand from his writings...


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> You're like the fake news stories that are proliferating around the internet. You have no idea what you post. You just put it out there, in hopes that nobody reads it and just accepts it as proof of your gibberish. Have you ever read anything that you have wrote?
> 
> First of all... His name was Igor!
> 
> Tell me, what do you understand from his writings...


Yep, it was Igor.  I transposed his first name with Solzhenitsyn.  I've done that before.  Shoot me.  I have read IGOR's work.  Have you?


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Christians also destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Christian god let AIDS happen. Should I go on?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.
> 
> I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, we are all broken human beings.  Some more than others.  You prove that on a daily basis.  Not to worry His spirit is still inside of you pruning you.  Be patient.  It is a work in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does god need to prune me? He fuck up when he made me the first time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  your parents did.
Click to expand...

They're dead. Thanks. You're such a loser. Again.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're like the fake news stories that are proliferating around the internet. You have no idea what you post. You just put it out there, in hopes that nobody reads it and just accepts it as proof of your gibberish. Have you ever read anything that you have wrote?
> 
> First of all... His name was Igor!
> 
> Tell me, what do you understand from his writings...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it was Igor.  I transposed his first name with Solzhenitsyn.  I've done that before.  Shoot me.  I have read IGOR's work.  Have you?
Click to expand...


Apparently you have not, since again you use something you haven't read to contradict your own argument about religion. Socialism is a religion. I have said that so many times so far. Not sure which one you missed. And, by fooling people to follow outrageous ideas for the benefit of their rulers, Socialists are just as guilty as any other religion of genocide and other horrific crimes against humanity.

The "heaven" that socialism offers is "communism". Communism has never existed, because it can't, given our human nature for greed. However, Christianity claims that "Heaven" is just like "Communism" because there is no greed or sin. We all live equally and in peace with each other on some other plane of existence. So the difference is that Communism wants that ideal on Earth, while Heaven wants it on some ethereal plane that requires death.

Both "heaven" and "communism" are impossible on this earth. Along with "valhalla" and "nirvana" and "jannah" and countless other paradises that rulers use to fool people into killing for them. They all require you to die in order to see it, while being in servitude throughout your life. That should be a big red flag.

These various "heavens" are simply a means rulers use to get their subjects to kill, based on the promise of paradise, in exchange for their martyrdom.

The true "paradise" we should strive for, should be the future success of mankind. And that requires getting along with other humans, science, protecting the earth and its habitats, and a way out of here when the cosmic shit eventually hits the fan.


----------



## RWS

So consider this scenario....

You meet a woman and fall in love. She is the love of your life and you marry her. That is a great thing!

But on her deathbed, you promise to be with her in Heaven.

Years later, you meet another wonderful woman and marry her. She is also everything you ever wanted and fall deeply in love.

But she dies too.

Which one do you spend eternity in Heaven with, once you die?

It's a paradox...

Unless Heaven is occupied by Mormons and that stuff is allowed...

Same thing applies to women, vice-versa.

Or, simply, there is no paradox, because there is no heaven where we get to hang out with each other after death.


----------



## RWS

I tend to stay on topic, but that question really confounds me....

Assume you're on Gilligan's Island and Heaven really exists, and you have loved Ginger for years (who then sadly died), and then Maryanne for years (who later sadly died).

Which one do you choose to spend eternity with in Heaven when you die? And won't the other feel a bit slighted, having been waiting, and then left all alone for eternity, despite your love for her? And what if she found someone else, before you got there? 

It's a conundrum millions and eventually billions of people must face in Heaven... if it exists.


----------



## RWS

Is there a "Heaven Dating Bar" that rejected people go to, to find eternal soulmates?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and they should not have rationalized that it was a good thing.  What's your point?
> 
> You'll have to take that aids thingee up with God.  Make sure to give Him an earful when you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Point is that Christians, like everyone else, are capable of the complete range of human actions, from the good to the bad, and aren't in any special category because of the belief in an invisible superbeing.
> 
> I'm for sure going to ask god why he gives little kids, or anyone really, cancer. Is it for fun, or is he simply a douchesack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, we are all broken human beings.  Some more than others.  You prove that on a daily basis.  Not to worry His spirit is still inside of you pruning you.  Be patient.  It is a work in progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does god need to prune me? He fuck up when he made me the first time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  your parents did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're dead. Thanks. You're such a loser. Again.
Click to expand...

Sorry for your loss.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're like the fake news stories that are proliferating around the internet. You have no idea what you post. You just put it out there, in hopes that nobody reads it and just accepts it as proof of your gibberish. Have you ever read anything that you have wrote?
> 
> First of all... His name was Igor!
> 
> Tell me, what do you understand from his writings...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it was Igor.  I transposed his first name with Solzhenitsyn.  I've done that before.  Shoot me.  I have read IGOR's work.  Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you have not, since again you use something you haven't read to contradict your own argument about religion. Socialism is a religion. I have said that so many times so far. Not sure which one you missed. And, by fooling people to follow outrageous ideas for the benefit of their rulers, Socialists are just as guilty as any other religion of genocide and other horrific crimes against humanity.
> 
> The "heaven" that socialism offers is "communism". Communism has never existed, because it can't, given our human nature for greed. However, Christianity claims that "Heaven" is just like "Communism" because there is no greed or sin. We all live equally and in peace with each other on some other plane of existence. So the difference is that Communism wants that ideal on Earth, while Heaven wants it on some ethereal plane that requires death.
> 
> Both "heaven" and "communism" are impossible on this earth. Along with "valhalla" and "nirvana" and "jannah" and countless other paradises that rulers use to fool people into killing for them. They all require you to die in order to see it, while being in servitude throughout your life. That should be a big red flag.
> 
> These various "heavens" are simply a means rulers use to get their subjects to kill, based on the promise of paradise, in exchange for their martyrdom.
> 
> The true "paradise" we should strive for, should be the future success of mankind. And that requires getting along with other humans, science, protecting the earth and its habitats, and a way out of here when the cosmic shit eventually hits the fan.
Click to expand...

Heaven is not being separated from God. Hell is being separated from God. I wouldn't read anymore than that into it.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> So consider this scenario....
> 
> You meet a woman and fall in love. She is the love of your life and you marry her. That is a great thing!
> 
> But on her deathbed, you promise to be with her in Heaven.
> 
> Years later, you meet another wonderful woman and marry her. She is also everything you ever wanted and fall deeply in love.
> 
> But she dies too.
> 
> Which one do you spend eternity in Heaven with, once you die?
> 
> It's a paradox...
> 
> Unless Heaven is occupied by Mormons and that stuff is allowed...
> 
> Same thing applies to women, vice-versa.
> 
> Or, simply, there is no paradox, because there is no heaven where we get to hang out with each other after death.


Jesus already answered this.


----------



## RWS

Well, I'd love to hear the reason in regular talk. Because from what I've learned, it actually does become a dating bar afterwards. Where you rejoin each spouse and live together and eventually decide whether you really want her/him or not. And then you go back and try again with the other, and so on. And if you're not there early enough, you may be out of luck. And spend eternity without a soulmate.

Doesn't seem fair to a poor fellow like Gilligan, in my example, who truly loved them both deeply. Maybe he'll hook up with the Skipper...

Do soulmates in Heaven have to be different genders?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Well, I'd love to hear the reason in regular talk. Because from what I've learned, it actually does become a dating bar afterwards. Where you rejoin each spouse and live together and eventually decide whether you really want her/him or not. And then you go back and try again with the other, and so on. And if you're not there early enough, you may be out of luck. And spend eternity without a soulmate.
> 
> Doesn't seem fair to a poor fellow like Gilligan, in my example, who truly loved them both deeply. Maybe he'll hook up with the Skipper...
> 
> Do soulmates in Heaven have to be different genders?


There's no marriage in heaven.


----------



## RWS

Well, then why do they force it on earth? 

Have a child out of wedlock when you're a Christian, and that poor kid is subject to ridicule. 

If we're just going to start over in a dating bar in Heaven, why promote the bond of marriage on earth? 

I got married in a Catholic church. Before I did, my future wife and I had to meet with the priests. The purpose, I believe, was why we are having a holy sanctimony in the "Church". 

Now she's Catholic. I never accepted a religion, even though my parents are Catholic. But I do believe in the goodness that the words of Jesus promote. And she knew how I rolled.  

So they questioned her and I for about an hour, but very mostly me, and I told them the flat out truth. I told them that I believe that the ideal of Jesus is good, but I do not believe that he was a supernatural being, and definitely not the son of "God". I told them that the idea of "god" is just something to make money out of, and that the only reason I wanted to get married there was to honor her faith. But that I would always be a good person that Jesus would be proud of. I laid out the truth to them, just like I have laid it out here. 

After a conference of about 30 minutes, they told me I could get married at their church for a donation. I offered $1000 and they accepted. 

So, whether it was them trusting my good nature even though I did not believe in the religion... or just wanting the donation... 

I got married here, and it was absolutely beautiful. 







Apparently, money trumps faith, when it really comes down to it.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


If God doesn't exist then you are not a God who yourself lives forever, never gets sick and are always happy for all eternity.

But you actually believe you are a God, don't you? That's insane when you think about it


----------



## BreezeWood

.


sealybobo said:


> But you actually believe you are a God, don't you?




have you reached the Apex of Knowledge and accomplished the Triumph of Good vs Evil ... then the Almighty will judge if it were the correct Triumph and finally your Spirit may be set free, for as long as it will last in the Everlasting.


----------



## PK1

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you actually believe you are a God, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> have you reached the Apex of Knowledge and accomplished the Triumph of Good vs Evil ... then the Almighty will judge if it were the correct Triumph and finally your Spirit may be set free, for as long as it will last in the Everlasting.
Click to expand...

How anthropomorphic, from an intellectually feeble perspective.
If you're going to fantasize a god who gives a shit what you do, why not imagine a being that appreciates your ability to have fun and enhance the merriness of all others you cross paths with?


----------



## Tuatara

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and science holds the answer to all questions....
> 
> Then what kick started the universe?
> 
> After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
> 
> If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
> 
> Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God doesn't exist then you are not a God who yourself lives forever, never gets sick and are always happy *for all eternity*.
> 
> But you actually believe you are a God, don't you? That's insane when you think about it
Click to expand...

Think about that. For all eternity. After 7,099,364 trillion years I think you would be saying "can someone kill me for real?"


----------



## PK1

*If God doesn't exist...*

Life would continue as is,
and i would not notice any difference.

Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.


----------



## sealybobo

PK1 said:


> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> Life would continue as is,
> and i would not notice any difference.
> 
> Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.


Very true.  It's willful ignorance.  Rather than admit we don't know and keep looking, religion suggests they have the answers.  Well I'm not comfortable with their answers nor should anyone else be.  Sounds made up to me.


----------



## sealybobo

PK1 said:


> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> Life would continue as is,
> and i would not notice any difference.
> 
> Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.



A *creation myth* is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.  Cultures generally regard their creation myths as true.  Creation myths often share a number of features. They often are considered sacred accounts and can be found in nearly all known religious traditions. They are all stories with a plot and characters who are either deities, human-like figures, or animals, who often speak and transform easily. They are often set in a dim and nonspecific past.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> If God doesn't exist then you are not a God who yourself lives forever, never gets sick and are always happy for all eternity.
> 
> But you actually believe you are a God, don't you? That's insane when you think about it








Where have I stated that I'm any more than a part of God's creation?

*****HAPPY SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> A *creation myth* is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.  Cultures generally regard their creation myths as true.  Creation myths often share a number of features. They often are considered sacred accounts and can be found in nearly all known religious traditions. They are all stories with a plot and characters who are either deities, human-like figures, or animals, who often speak and transform easily. They are often set in a dim and nonspecific past.







You mean it's sort of like settled science, global warming, and the big bang theory.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ding

PK1 said:


> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> Life would continue as is,
> and i would not notice any difference.
> 
> Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.


Jesus did say He came for the sick and not the healthy.


----------



## BreezeWood

PK1 said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you actually believe you are a God, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> have you reached the Apex of Knowledge and accomplished the Triumph of Good vs Evil ... then the Almighty will judge if it were the correct Triumph and finally your Spirit may be set free, for as long as it will last in the Everlasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How anthropomorphic, from an intellectually feeble perspective.
> If you're going to fantasize a god who gives a shit what you do, why not imagine a being that appreciates your ability to have fun and enhance the merriness of all others you cross paths with?
Click to expand...

.


PK1 said:


> How anthropomorphic, from an intellectually feeble perspective.
> If you're going to fantasize a god who gives a shit what you do, why not imagine a being that appreciates your ability to have fun and enhance the merriness of all others you cross paths with?




what's intellectually feeble is your response ... or lack of a response to comment on.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> Life would continue as is,
> and i would not notice any difference.
> 
> Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus did say He came for the sick and not the healthy.
Click to expand...

I thought Jesus came for the wine and the hot guys.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you actually believe you are a God, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you reached the Apex of Knowledge and accomplished the Triumph of Good vs Evil ... then the Almighty will judge if it were the correct Triumph and finally your Spirit may be set free, for as long as it will last in the Everlasting.
Click to expand...

Whatever all that means.  Sounds to me like you are saying only god can judge if you were a good person or not.  I agree.  But Christians and Muslims say that's not enough. You have to swallow their religions in order to get into the kingdom of heaven.  

So no I haven't reached the apex of knowledge and no I haven't figured out good vs. evil yet.  Neither have you.  In fact our religion seems a little evil to me.  Lies often are evil even if they make you feel good about yourself.  Look at those cults that tell people to kill themselves and they'll go off to heaven.

The point now I want to make is just how silly your belief is.  The idea that you yourself are a god.  When your shell dies, your spirit goes off to a place called heaven and you live forever in bliss.  Can you think of anything more childish that you could believe?  Or arrogant?  How do you religious people believe this?  Do you honestly believe you are a god yourself because that's what gods do.  They live forever and can do anything and they are never sick or never unhappy.  That's you after you die?

And you don't believe this is man made up?  Wake the fuck up people.  See how religion makes you fucking stupid?  I'm not angry.  I'm not mean.  I'm not trying to piss on your bliss.  You retarded religious people are holding us back from being a much smarter species.  Stop it!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> Life would continue as is,
> and i would not notice any difference.
> 
> Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true.  It's willful ignorance.  Rather than admit we don't know and keep looking, religion suggests they have the answers.  Well I'm not comfortable with their answers nor should anyone else be.  Sounds made up to me.
Click to expand...







Perhaps it's willful ignorance to deny the proof of God's existence that surrounds you.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****


----------



## Mudda

Damaged Eagle said:


> Perhaps it's willful ignorance to deny the proof of God's existence that surrounds you.
> 
> *****HAPPY SMILE*****


What proof would that be?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> Life would continue as is,
> and i would not notice any difference.
> 
> Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus did say He came for the sick and not the healthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought Jesus came for the wine and the hot guys.
Click to expand...

I can see why you believe that.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you actually believe you are a God, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you reached the Apex of Knowledge and accomplished the Triumph of Good vs Evil ... then the Almighty will judge if it were the correct Triumph and finally your Spirit may be set free, for as long as it will last in the Everlasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever all that means.  Sounds to me like you are saying only god can judge if you were a good person or not.  I agree.  But Christians and Muslims say that's not enough. You have to swallow their religions in order to get into the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> So no I haven't reached the apex of knowledge and no I haven't figured out good vs. evil yet.  Neither have you.  In fact our religion seems a little evil to me.  Lies often are evil even if they make you feel good about yourself.  Look at those cults that tell people to kill themselves and they'll go off to heaven.
> 
> The point now I want to make is just how silly your belief is.  The idea that you yourself are a god.  When your shell dies, your spirit goes off to a place called heaven and you live forever in bliss.  Can you think of anything more childish that you could believe?  Or arrogant?  How do you religious people believe this?  Do you honestly believe you are a god yourself because that's what gods do.  They live forever and can do anything and they are never sick or never unhappy.  That's you after you die?
> 
> And you don't believe this is man made up?  Wake the fuck up people.  See how religion makes you fucking stupid?  I'm not angry.  I'm not mean.  I'm not trying to piss on your bliss.  You retarded religious people are holding us back from being a much smarter species.  Stop it!
Click to expand...

Do you believe you are more intelligent than I am?


----------



## Dr Grump

Damaged Eagle said:


> [
> 
> Perhaps it's willful ignorance to deny the proof of God's existence that surrounds you.



That's not proof. That's nice pictures.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Mudda said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's willful ignorance to deny the proof of God's existence that surrounds you.
> 
> 
> 
> What proof would that be?
Click to expand...







*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Dr Grump said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's willful ignorance to deny the proof of God's existence that surrounds you.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not proof. That's nice pictures.
Click to expand...






What proof do you have to disprove my beliefs?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> Life would continue as is,
> and i would not notice any difference.
> 
> Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus did say He came for the sick and not the healthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought Jesus came for the wine and the hot guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see why you believe that.
Click to expand...

Because you agree that Jesus was gay?


----------



## Mudda

Damaged Eagle said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's willful ignorance to deny the proof of God's existence that surrounds you.
> 
> 
> 
> What proof would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Your proof proof is a picture of a guy with his arms out? Huh?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> Life would continue as is,
> and i would not notice any difference.
> 
> Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus did say He came for the sick and not the healthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought Jesus came for the wine and the hot guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see why you believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you agree that Jesus was gay?
Click to expand...

No, because I believe you are a troll.


----------



## Mudda

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If God doesn't exist...*
> 
> Life would continue as is,
> and i would not notice any difference.
> 
> Seems to me that "God" is what a feeble mind imagines to easy-button "explain" their origins, from their anthropomorphic perspective, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus did say He came for the sick and not the healthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought Jesus came for the wine and the hot guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see why you believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you agree that Jesus was gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because I believe you are a troll.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Jesus who said: "the hard part is getting the tip in"?


----------



## ding

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus did say He came for the sick and not the healthy.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Jesus came for the wine and the hot guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see why you believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you agree that Jesus was gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because I believe you are a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't it Jesus who said: "the hard part is getting the tip in"?
Click to expand...

You may be confusing Him with your father.


----------



## flacaltenn

*Mod Note:

This thread is tired. Trolling and personal insults are dominating the discussion.  Closed. *


----------

