Any of you ACTUALLY believe our friend Jesus

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lmao picking an article that goes against the point you were making. Classic mouse.

[RaZon]

How can anything that can't be proven be argued/debated?

If buying into God makes a person feel better about their life...cool~~~ If thinking all that God bull is just that makes you feel better about your life...cool~~~

BINGO!!!!!!

To try and prove evolution with no God...hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Continue going around in circles.

[Reck]

RaZon you're out of your depth on this thread. Get out my pet.

[RandomGuy]

You have a measuring stick that can handle the Sun's heat and a rocket ship to get us there?

I am not going to split hairs on if the Sun loses 90 million tons per second or 4 feet of mass per hour the fact is it could not have been the same size 4 billion years ago.

I do not have such a craft, nor do I have such a measuring stick. Neither are necessary.

I agree the sun was not the same size when it was formed as it is now.

I agree it has lost mass, and will continue to do so.

You have yet to demonstrate how this loss of mass relates to the loss of volume however.

You also have yet to show what evidence you have that it was the same 4 billion years ago.

(edit)
That the volume is a cubed unit should be clue that your attempt to calculate this will not produce a result that will support your statement. There is a reason that the statement is "discredited". It ignores the cubed function of volume, and is a very basic math/geometry error.



So in all fairness I will give you another example:

Since laser reflecting mirrors have been placed on the moon (by unmanned probes)

Researchers can measure the exact distance the moon is from the earth.

In doing so researchers have discovered the Moon drifting from the earth at a rate of 4 inches a year.

That may not seem like a lot but if you take the clock back "4 Billion" years that would put the moon to close to the earth for the Big bang theory to hold water.

What evidence do you have that this drift rate was the same in the past?

The "big bang" thoery does not state the universe is 4 billion years old.



Another example is the oldest comet recorded is 10,000 - 15,000 years old and yet comets are the result of the big bang that supposedly took place "4 Billion" years ago?

Who writes this shit?

Comets were not created in the Big Bang, any more than the Earth was. Both came into being much later.

[RandomGuy]

How can anything that can't be proven be argued/debated?

If buying into God makes a person feel better about their life...cool~~~ If thinking all that God bull is just that makes you feel better about your life...cool~~~

BINGO!!!!!!

To try and prove evolution with no God...hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Continue going around in circles.

Things that cannot be proven can be argued about, just not successfully.

If one has no proof of the existance of something that is pretty much the end of any debate, IMO, but one can discuss things beyond that failure.

It is less going around in circles than simply excersizing enough logic to get to the appropriate conclusion.

Evolution pretty much has been proven.

We have no proof that the universe as it stands requires a God of any sort.

[RandomGuy]

Forget all the websites and cut and paste jobs how about you answer some questions directly?

If the earth is "4 Billion" years old why is the oldest Tree only 20,0000 years old?

Because trees older than that died in the past.

[RaZon]

RaZon you're out of your depth on this thread. Get out my pet.

Not at all I've been down this path many times. Whoever entered the thread with an opinion will leave the thread with that same opinion. The whole exercise is a huge wast of time. Nothing can be proven. So it goes around and around and around.

Trust me it is not complex or deep. Very simple actually.

It takes faith to believe in God. So there goes any logic. Evolution is just a theory, so there goes any concrete evidence of anything there. So what's left? Yep, just a bunch of opinions based on....nothing.

[cantthinkofanything]

Not at all I've been down this path many times. Whoever entered the thread with an opinion will leave the thread with that same opinion. The whole exercise is a huge wast of time. Nothing can be proven. So it goes around and around and around.

Trust me it is not complex or deep. Very simple actually.

It takes faith to believe in God. So there goes any logic. Evolution is just a theory, so there goes any concrete evidence of anything there. So what's left? Yep, just a bunch of opinions based on....nothing.

I spy something sig worthy for you RaZon. Or maybe a subtitle for all your threads.

[RandomGuy]

But scientist want you to believe that comets can survive billions of years?

Scientists do not believe that comets orbiting our Sun survive billions of years.

[redzero]

Evolution is just a theory, so there goes any concrete evidence of anything there. So what's left? Yep, just a bunch of opinions based on....nothing.

:lol Is gravity just a theory?

[baseline bum]

:lol Is gravity just a theory?

It's one that's far less understood than evolution for sure.

[mouse]

I do not have such a craft, nor do I have such a measuring stick. Neither are necessary.

If you want to know how deep or how big an object is you do need to measure it or find something to compare it to. I was only trying to satisfy your need to know such measurement which is kinda hard since we both live on Earth we need to rely on the data and figure out what makes sense.


I agree the sun was not the same size when it was formed as it is now.

Then with that same logic it must have been much larger "4 Billion" years ago.



I agree it has lost mass, and will continue to do so.

Same here.




You have yet to demonstrate how this loss of mass relates to the loss of volume however.

Let me PM Agloco I'm sure he has the data I need on top of his desk between his slide ruler and Geiger Counter.

Or we can move forward and address the many other issues that blow the "4 Million" age of earth theory away.



You also have yet to show what evidence you have that it was the same 4 billion years ago.

Your right the sun is the same size as it was "4 Billion" years ago It's like the Energizer Bunny it keeps going and going..

I don't need the Sun's data to make my points but if you want to make this two more pages longer than it needs to be ok I guess.



What evidence do you have that this drift rate was the same in the past?

Careful measurements in recent years have supported the collapse theory by showing that the sun's diameter does, indeed, appear to be shrinking. But this in turn would mean that the sun could not possibly be billions of years old.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-1.gif


http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-2.gif




The "big bang" thoery does not state the universe is 4 billion years old.



http://ssscott.tripod.com/bang.jpg


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41N5AKNWFGL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

http://www.arky.org/thestore/JPG/3920.jpg

http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/_images/books/livingearth.jpg

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/HIWJS_01-bookazine.jpg

http://elizabethwong.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/2007-science-year-5-text-book.jpg

http://www.griggs-co.k12.nd.us/hs/staff/olson-l/PhysicalScience/physicalsciencetextbook.jpg

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/content/9780511730191/9780511730191c8_abstract_CBO.jpg




Comets were not created in the Big Bang, any more than the Earth was. Both came into being much later.

From where the Ort cloud? Are you serious?

A fictitious fairy tale of a debunked theory of an object that has never been seen and was created solely for future debates.



Astronomers examining the crystals brought back by the Wild 2 probe have found the crystals could only have been created in a very hot explosion. I say, comets are part of that huge dirty debrie field created in the Big Bang


Big bang's afterglow reveal birthplace of comets

00:01 02 December 2008 by Rachel Courtland
For similar stories, visit the Comets and Asteroids Topic Guide

A vast reservoir of comets that is too far away to see might be detectable in maps of radiation left over from the big bang, a new study suggests.

Comets that take longer than 200 years to orbit the Sun come from all directions in the sky. That has long led scientists to believe that they were nudged out of a diffuse halo of icy objects that surrounds the solar system

astronomers believe it has two components. Based on observations of long-period comets, an outer portion seems to extend from 20,000 to 200,000 astronomical units from the Sun (where 1 AU is the Earth-Sun distance).

Solar system models also predict the existence of an inner shell that stretches some 3000 to 20,000 AU from the Sun. But there is less evidence for this shell - most passing stars are too distant to jostle the inner halo and dislodge comets. Only a few recently spotted objects, such as the icy bodies 2006 SQ372Movie Camera and Sedna, point to its existence.
the first radiation emitted in the universe after the big bang.

[boutons_deux]

"Evolution is just a theory, so there goes any concrete evidence of anything there."

There's plenty of concrete evidence.

Even short term-evolution, like epigenetics, is observed. Women and men's diets and health affects their sperm and egg qualities that get passed on as permanent genetic qualities to the offspring IN ONE GENERATION.

[mouse]

Because trees older than that died in the past.

Where is the evidence? We should have huge petrified Forrest in every state and county.

I should be able to go to my back yard and climb my own petrified tree.

Funny how the trees are mysteriously gone but your many Dinosaur bones are there to be viewed in any museum.


pssssst! what about the earths oldest coral reef is only 55,000 years old where is the Million year old coral reef?

[mouse]

"Evolution is just a theory, so there goes any concrete evidence of anything there."

That goes for parts of the Bible as well.




There's plenty of concrete evidence.

Feel free to post some.




Even short term-evolution, like epigenetics, is observed. Women and men's diets and health affects their sperm and egg qualities that get passed on as permanent genetic qualities to the offspring IN ONE GENERATION.

That is micro Evolution no one is saying certain birds can't evolve to birds with different beaks to survive in different locations.

No one is saying that different plants and animals can't evolve "within" their "species" to become modified.

I'm sure If man stopped using shoes his feet would evolve into some sort of webbed thick shoe looking foot to adapt to 1000's of years going barefoot on the sidewalks and streets.

The issue is Macro Evolution where people claim a Fish can become a dog.

An Ape can become a man.



Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species.

However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

[RandomGuy]

Not at all I've been down this path many times. Whoever entered the thread with an opinion will leave the thread with that same opinion. The whole exercise is a huge wast of time. Nothing can be proven. So it goes around and around and around.

Trust me it is not complex or deep. Very simple actually.

It takes faith to believe in God. So there goes any logic. Evolution is just a theory, so there goes any concrete evidence of anything there. So what's left? Yep, just a bunch of opinions based on....nothing.

Things can be proven.

There are a provable number of cups on my desk. This is a tangible observation that is not subject to opinion or religious dogma. This forms the basis for all science and empirical knowledge.

Evolution is a theory that explains observed facts, better than any other available theory. The evidence supporting this theory is vastly extensive and has been compiled over hundreds of years.

As a theory it is superior to facts, because it can be used to make predictions about facts we have yet to observe.

Since we have been using this theory to make predictions, it has a very good track record of predicting things we would expect, were it to be a true explanation of how biological life forms came about on our planet.

[RandomGuy]

Where is the evidence? We should have huge petrified Forrest in every state and county.

I should be able to go to my back yard and climb my own petrified tree.

Funny how the trees are mysteriously gone but your many Dinosaur bones are there to be viewed in any museum.


pssssst! what about the earths oldest coral reef is only 55,000 years old where is the Million year old coral reef?

The evidence of dead trees is buried in the fossil record, along with everything else.

We should not have huge petrified forests in every state and county.

Your claim is based on something debunked a long time ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html

[RandomGuy]

Claim CE310:
The sun is shrinking at such a rate that it would disappear completely in 100,000 years. This would make it impossibly large and hot in the distant past if the sun is millions of years old.

Debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

[mouse]

Since we have been using this theory to make predictions,

When do they predict to cure cancer?

Did Science predict the huge Tsunami that killed 1000s?



it has a very good track record

So did the Dallas cowboys at one time.



of predicting things
.


So science is really nothing more than using an...

http://www.entertainmentearth.com/images/%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CMT30188lg.jpg


http://www.spellboundenterprises.com/store/images/categories/crystal-ball.jpg

[RandomGuy]

From where the Ort cloud? Are you serious?

A fictitious fairy tale of a debunked theory of an object that has never been seen and was created solely for future debates.


Solar system models also predict the existence of an inner shell that stretches some 3000 to 20,000 AU from the Sun. But there is less evidence for this shell - most passing stars are too distant to jostle the inner halo and dislodge comets. Only a few recently spotted objects, such as the icy bodies 2006 SQ372Movie Camera and Sedna, point to its existence.
the first radiation emitted in the universe after the big bang.

The first quote is not scientific evidence that comets were created in the big bang. Scientists know this is not the case. Quote mining creationists' opinions is not going to show you what scientists say or believe happened.

The second quote is from a study that shows how cosmic radiation from the Big bang was used to prove the existance of the Oort Cloud you claim is debunked.

Again, Comets were not formed in the Big Bang, as your own quoted material shows. They came about much later.

[RandomGuy]

Did Science predict the huge Tsunami that killed 1000s?

How would you use the theory of evolution to predict Tsunamis?

[mouse]

The evidence of dead trees is buried in the fossil record, along with everything else.

The fossil record is a chart that was exposed to be wrong years ago back in the 1800s.

Speaking of Fossils how long does fossilization take?




We should not have huge petrified forests in every state and county.

Just show me one.

[RandomGuy]

The fossil record is a chart that was exposed to be wrong years ago back in the 1800s.

Speaking of Fossils how long does fossilization take?

Just show me one.

The length of time that it takes something to fossilize is physics.

I thought we were talking about evolutionary biology.

But since you asked,


Fossils can form rapidly, so fossils are not a problem for a young earth.

debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html

[mouse]

How would you use the theory of evolution to predict Tsunamis?

Your the one who said It is a tool to predict things not me these are your words.





As a theory it is superior to facts, because it can be used to make predictions about facts we have yet to observe.

Since we have been using this theory to make predictions, it has a very good track record of predicting things we would expect, were it to be a true explanation of how biological life forms came about on our planet.

[RandomGuy]

. Evolution is just a theory,


Claim CA201:
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

[Blake]

mouse, what is your theory on how humans came to be?

[mouse]

The length of time that it takes something to fossilize is physics.

I thought we were talking about evolutionary biology.

But since you asked,



debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html

How do you explain a fossilized cowboy boot?

http://discovercreation.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Cowboy-Boot-with-Fossilized-Human-Foot-and-Leg-Bone-copy.jpg

[RandomGuy]

How would you use the theory of evolution to predict Tsunamis?


Your the one who said It is a tool to predict things not me these are your words.

I said that theories can be used to make predictions.

The theory of evolution can be used to make predictions about facts we have not yet observed. It has done this already.

I said nothing about Tsunamis, you did.

Evolutionary theory can't be used to predict Tsunamis, to my knowledge, and I thought the subject was the theory of evolution here, with some forays into physics.

[RandomGuy]

How do you explain a fossilized cowboy boot?

http://discovercreation.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Cowboy-Boot-with-Fossilized-Human-Foot-and-Leg-Bone-copy.jpg

It's not fossilized.

[RandomGuy]

We should not have huge petrified forests in every state and county.


Just show me one.

I cannot prove a negative.

Do you want me to prove I am not the Easter Bunny?

[RandomGuy]

... and on that note...

Your own quoted material has shown you to be factually incorrect.

Every single one of the things you have posted here, has been debunked as either factually incorrect, or based on faulty logic, long ago.

Reposting bad arguments repeatedly doens't make them any truer the Nth time than it was the first time it got proven wrong.

The universe is billions of years old.

The earth, although younger is billions of years old.

Evolution explains our existance.

For evolution to be incorrect, virtually everything we know about geology, physics, chemistry, biology, and genetics to be incorrect.

There are no alternative theories that better explain our world.

That you can't present such a theory says all anyone needs to know about how much credence to give your critiques.

[mouse]

I cannot prove a negative.

Your the one saying there are all these massive trees that have died over 4 billion years I say where are they you say they are fossilized I say where are they and you say you cant prove a negative?

Dude stop while your ahead.




Do you want me to prove I am not the Easter Bunny?

I want you to semi back your claims as you keep asking me to do.

here's a petrified pickle while you think of more excuses.

http://beginningingenesis.ca/petrifie%20pickle.jpg

[mouse]

It's not fossilized.

It's petrified

Like this tree which by the way is standing through many layers of rock that Scientist claim are millions of years apart.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/petrified-tree.jpg

[Blake]

mouse, what is your theory on how humans came to be?

[RandomGuy]

It's petrified

Like this tree which by the way is standing through many layers of rock that Scientist claim are millions of years apart.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/petrified-tree.jpg

That picture does not show a "petrified" or fossilized boot/foot. That bit was debunked previously quite some time back. I'm sorry you can't remember it. I will not bother re-explaining it to you. Google is your friend if you truly want an explanation for it, and precisely why it is not what you seem to think it is.



Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology

Debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html

[RandomGuy]

Your the one saying there are all these massive trees that have died over 4 billion years I say where are they you say they are fossilized I say where are they and you say you cant prove a negative?

I don't claim all dead trees are fossilized.


The evidence of dead trees is buried in the fossil record, along with everything else.

Not all dead trees become fossils or survive to be petrified.

Some do, most don't.

I will not prove things that I do not claim.

[RandomGuy]

I want you to semi back your claims as you keep asking me to do.


I have backed up my claims. You have provided me with supporting material yourself.

I have asked you to show evidence of:

The rate at which the sun shrinks has remained constant for billions of years.

The rate at which the moon is receding has remained constant for billions of years.

You have failed to show either. You have current measurements, but no evidence that either rate was the same a billion years ago, as it is today.

If you cannot do that then calculations or projections based on the current rate remaining permanently fixed are meaningless.

Can you show what the rate was a billion years ago for either?

[RandomGuy]

I am shrinking at a rate of 1 inch per 20 years.

I am 40 years old.

If one assumes that my rate of shrinking is the same 40 years ago as it is today, I was two inches taller than I am now when I was born.

The sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per 30 minutes.

If one assumes this rate of shrinking is permanent and unchanging, then we can calculate how big it was 4 billion years ago, and exactly when it will dissappear.


If the underlying assumption "this rate is permenent" is wrong, then any calculations based on it, are logically wrong as well. My momma did not give birth to a 5' 9" Randomguy, so we must assume that my rate of growth in the past was different then.

[mouse]

Debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html


I see when you want to prove the earth is Millions of years old you have no problem pulling out old fossle charts from the 1800's

You have no problem telling me the layers of the rocks show a time line but as soon as I post a photo of a Tree that is standing through many layers then all of a sudden it was earth that was the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology.

Well then why can't that logic work for me and when I say the layers of earth at the grand canyon be a result of a few months of flooding.

This is the problem with hardheaded Atheist they don't have a clue what the word "double standard " really means.


I like how you use a website to think for you since you have no real knowledge on this subject.


pssssst! any word yet on the petrified Pickle?

[mouse]

I will not prove things that I do not claim.

What have you claimed so far?

[Woo Bum-kon]

I like how you use a website to think for you since you have no real knowledge on this subject.

:lmao Holy shit, the irony! All you do is recycle old anti-evolution/pro-moon conspiracy evidence all the time. Hell, you even copied and pasted other people's arguments without properly crediting them. You have never provided any original research. Don't even try to criticize others for using websites for info.

[Blake]

mouse, what is your theory on how humans came to be?

[mouse]

I am shrinking at a rate of 1 inch per 20 years.

I am 40 years old.

If one assumes that my rate of shrinking is the same 40 years ago as it is today, I was two inches taller than I am now when I was born.

The sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per 30 minutes.

If one assumes this rate of shrinking is permanent and unchanging, then we can calculate how big it was 4 billion years ago, and exactly when it will dissappear.


If the underlying assumption "this rate is permenent" is wrong, then any calculations based on it, are logically wrong as well. My momma did not give birth to a 5' 9" Randomguy, so we must assume that my rate of growth in the past was different then.


Yes but the earth didn't start off as a baby it was a result of a huge explosion.

key word "explosion" when objects are tossed away from the energy they exploded from.

That means all the planets and moons and stars had to be part of this big ass rock that decided to explode and formed this universe we live in.

You see how foolish Science sounds when you break it down?

Since we know objects that are a result from an explosion rotate in the same direction why does Jupiter have a moon rotating in the opposite direction?

Did it decided to stop spinning and then start rotating in the other direction, or did the Ort cloud monster do it?

Besides your growth analogy although very creative doesn't account for Billions of years. I'm sure if you was 4 Billion years old your size could fluctuate tremendously.


The problem with your cute scenario's it doesn't really explain much.
For example what caused this "big bang"?

and why would something exploded for no reason?

and also how did that huge ball of mass get there?

personally I really don't give a rats ass how it all began but your never going to convince me the earth is even "1 Billion" years old the fact that the earth erodes tremendously every 1000 years alone disputes that insane claim by Scientists.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Yes but the earth didn't start off as a baby it was a result of a huge explosion.

key word "explosion" when objects are tossed away from the energy they exploded from.

That means all the planets and moons and stars had to be part of this big ass rock that decided to explode and formed this universe we live in.

You see how foolish Science sounds when you break it down?

Yeah, science sounds really stupid when a high school dropout security guard tries to explain it :lol.

1.) The Big Bang was a rapid expansion. You have already been told this.
2.) It didn't explode from some bigass rock.

:lmao Stick with what you know, Mark. Dumpster diving is what you're good, not critical thinking.

[mouse]

RandomLie's source of bogus info.


http://www.talkorigins.org/pictures/title.jpg

Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist


I am not a creationist and you need a site that does not have an agenda and is run by bias Atheists.

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lmao Yeah, you definitely get your info from unbiased sources!

Mark Allen, you are almost as dumb and dishonest as you are poor.

[RandomGuy]

What have you claimed so far?

Post 290.

[RandomGuy]

I see when you want to prove the earth is Millions of years old you have no problem pulling out old fossle charts from the 1800's

You have no problem telling me the layers of the rocks show a time line but as soon as I post a photo of a Tree that is standing through many layers then all of a sudden it was earth that was the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology.

Well then why can't that logic work for me and when I say the layers of earth at the grand canyon be a result of a few months of flooding.

This is the problem with hardheaded Atheist they don't have a clue what the word "double standard " really means.


I like how you use a website to think for you since you have no real knowledge on this subject.


pssssst! any word yet on the petrified Pickle?

So, you don't have any evidence of what rate the sun was shrinking in the past, and what the starting diameter was?

[RandomGuy]

Yes but the earth didn't start off as a baby it was a result of a huge explosion.


Please provide evidence that the earth started from a "big explosion".

That is not what the generally held explanation regarding the earth states.

[RandomGuy]

RandomLie's source of bogus info.


http://www.talkorigins.org/pictures/title.jpg

Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist


I am not a creationist and you need a site that does not have an agenda and is run by bias Atheists.

It may be run by biased atheists, but that has no bearing on what they claim is obsevervable science.

Either the sky is blue or it is not. A biased atheist claiming the sky is blue does not imply that the sky is some other color.

This is what is known as an ad hominem logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Your attempt to dismiss it is rejected, because that attempt is based on something provably illogical.

You must show, to a reasonable degree, why any individual claim is wrong.

[RandomGuy]

RandomLie's

I have stated that I will refrain from insulting you.

If you cannot return the favor, then we are done.

[RandomGuy]

Yes but the earth didn't start off as a baby it was a result of a huge explosion.

key word "explosion" when objects are tossed away from the energy they exploded from.

That means all the planets and moons and stars had to be part of this big ass rock that decided to explode and formed this universe we live in.

You see how foolish Science sounds when you break it down?



Science does not state anything of the sort.

This is known as a strawman logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

You have misstated what "science", i.e.scientists, have postulated about the origin of the universe, and our planet.

Your statement is therefore rejected as logically flawed.

If you cannot reasonably restate what the currently held assertions of scientists are, then you only prove that either you are lying or do not understand what that assertion is.

I believe you do not understand. That is my opinion.

Please accurately explain what scientists think is the explanation for the formation of our planet.

[Big Empty]

See that little critter that just waddled out of the ocean? That is the beginings of an elephant. Oh yeah and an eagle.

Pretty hard to grasp.
:lol nice

[Big Empty]

I think science and religion can co-exist.

Two brothers, one a scientist, and one a preacher, walk into the living room and see some cookies. They both wondered where they came from. The scientist brother stated "well, I can see that butter and sugar was mixed along with flour and eggs and wre created after being heated at 375 degrees." The preacher brother explained, "yea... mom made them".

LOL I like this because while i believe in a higher being, I think religion and science are why we are here.

[reason]

This entire thread is perplexing.

[redzero]

I think science and religion can co-exist.

Two brothers, one a scientist, and one a preacher, walk into the living room and see some cookies. They both wondered where they came from. The scientist brother stated "well, I can see that butter and sugar was mixed along with flour and eggs and wre created after being heated at 375 degrees." The preacher brother explained, "yea... mom made them".

LOL I like this because while i believe in a higher being, I think religion and science are why we are here.

Yeah, the joke doesn't work.

[Big Empty]

Yeah, the joke doesn't work.
At least give me an A for effort :lol

[mouse]

So, you don't have any evidence of what rate the sun was shrinking in the past, and what the starting diameter was?


Ok on that point it's a draw I see your point.

Even Einstein's life of sun formula "E = m · c2" the many researching since then.

And with all the satellite data and Hubble telescope results you want to act like the Sun is only getting larger is your right and unless we both visit the Sun who is to say if I am off a ft or two.

But I see your point. Maybe it was just the right amount of Bud light and THC but i have to give you a pass since I can't give you the evidence you ask for without using someone else s data then I can't expect you to explain how the Universe was formed.

so we can call it a draw (on that point) and move on to the next point?....


I am curious as to why if the Mississippi River loses a football field of mud every hour why wouldn't it be much wider than it is today?

Given the fact the earth is even "500 Million years old" 3 1/2 Billion less than what Scientist claim.

You see how the word "Billion" is just pure nonsense?

We don't have to agree on everything but we can at least agree when we smell bullshit.

[CitizenDwayne]

Religion's weird.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think science and religion can co-exist.

Two brothers, one a scientist, and one a preacher, walk into the living room and see some cookies. They both wondered where they came from. The scientist brother stated "well, I can see that butter and sugar was mixed along with flour and eggs and wre created after being heated at 375 degrees." The preacher brother explained, "yea... mom made them".

LOL I like this because while i believe in a higher being, I think religion and science are why we are here.

Well i suppose if you take the Bible as a bunch of parables and not things that actually happened then they can coexist. OTOH, if you take things like zombies, asexual reproduction in humans, floods covering the entirety of the earth, people hanging out in furnaces or whales, demonic transference of spirits to pigs, spontaneous duplication, transmutation into salt, talking snakes, protection from infectious disease from animal blood, reattachment of appendages by touch, or any of the other myths in teh Bible literally then the two cannot coexist.

[mouse]

I have stated that I will refrain from insulting you.

If you cannot return the favor, then we are done.


I remember you posting that you thought that was a witty funny play on your name.

You seemed to take it well. now you use it to bail on a debate your getting your ass waxed in?

go right ahead,.

Come back when you have thicker skin, make your Gorilla ancestors proud you evolved and your here to represent them.

Thus far you have been doing a fair Job.

Your just misguided and you let the Anti Dr. Hovind websites take over your natural frame of thinking.

You see this subject is to me like Aunt Jemima is to pancakes.

As soon as you eat what I got I have another stack waiting.

I can go on for months with points of view that would make Steve Hawkins want to give head to Billy Gram.

But I am just sitting back and waiting for you to run out of Google searched comeback.

I have yet to ask you some shit that will require you open a separate browser for help.

So if you want to bail because I had fun with your Screen name after all these years of knowing you then it's your call esse.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/cray.gif

[mouse]

have you hit .....

VnnQFLoCbWw

[TheSkeptic]

What evidence?

Do you have evidence that cannot be attributed to natural causes?

Assuming you don't want me to relate other people's experiences, I have seen people getting healed before. I think that's the type of evidence you're looking for right?



The God of the bible is both all-knowing and all-powerful. God would not have to control anybody. He could have simply told Jepthah that the first thing that would come out of the house would be Jepthah's daughter, and that God would be happy with something a bit less drastic.

Why do you think God looks for the quality of "I'm willing to murder children" in his followers?

I don't think they had that kind of relationship tbh.

It's not "I'm willing to murder children" so much as "I'm going to put God and my obligations to him first in my life". That's the attitude Jepthah took.

If you want to argue that that was the wrong thing to do and that he should've gone with the first animal...well I won't disagree.


That doesn't answer my question.

If you promised the mayor you would burn your child alive to get what you wanted, what do you think the mayor would do?

or, if you prefer:

What woud *you* do if someone wanted something from you, and said they were ready to burn their child alive in order to get it?

Weird. I thought I answered this but I must've missed it.

Well of course I'd move out of concern for the child first.

Again, it's different in this case in that he didn't say he was willing to burn his child. He just promised the first thing out of his house and that happened to be his child. That's a distinction that makes a difference to me although I can understand why it wouldn't to you.



I disagree.

You lose a great deal when you believe in things that are not real, or give in to threats of infinite punishment for finite crimes.

When you look at it that way I suppose. I know quite a few people who have approached it differently but I didn't become a Christian in hopes of escaping Hell and all that jazz.

I wouldn't expect you to understand (no offence) but there was something else that compelled me to make that decision.


"Evolution is just a theory, so there goes any concrete evidence of anything there."

There's plenty of concrete evidence.

Even short term-evolution, like epigenetics, is observed. Women and men's diets and health affects their sperm and egg qualities that get passed on as permanent genetic qualities to the offspring IN ONE GENERATION.

I always thought bacteria was the most observable thing. Just the rapid way with which they acquire new traits and the like.

Although I guess it depends on what that particular poster means by "evolution"?

[TheSkeptic]

Well i suppose if you take the Bible as a bunch of parables and not things that actually happened then they can coexist. OTOH, if you take things like zombies, asexual reproduction in humans, floods covering the entirety of the earth, people hanging out in furnaces or whales, demonic transference of spirits to pigs, spontaneous duplication, transmutation into salt, talking snakes, protection from infectious disease from animal blood, reattachment of appendages by touch, or any of the other myths in teh Bible literally then the two cannot coexist.

You know it's interesting that you'd point some of this out because I've met and known people who have actually seen some of this stuff happen before. And then some. :lol

[Blake]

You know it's interesting that you'd point some of this out because I've met and known people who have actually seen some of this stuff happen before. And then some. :lol

Give some examples

[mouse]

RandomLie if you got over your sensitivity on me calling you RandomLie I have another question for you.

[Blake]

RandomLie if you got over your sensitivity on me calling you RandomLie I have another question for you.

How mature of you.

Too bad you haven't gotten over your sensitivity when I call you a stupid fuck.

[RaZon]

When you become an old man/woman and start realizing that it won't be long until you won't be here any longer. I'd want to think that just maybe there is a better place. I doubt you'd be too concerned over evolution and is there a God and can He be proven. I think most these...bah humbuggers...would hope there really is a God.

Without a God in your life you are here for a short time then dead as a door nail. Why set yourself for that? Why not have some hope, some faith in something? To play this.."you can't fool me, I'm too smart"....gets you what? It don't get you a damn thing, you gain nothing by taking that stance.

When I was a kid I once asked my great grandma.."where is grandpa?" That got a.."he is up in Heaven, smiling down on us". I liked that. Sure beat the hell out of hearing.."he's worm food".

[redzero]

I doubt you'd be too concerned over evolution and is there a God and can He be proven.

Why would we be concerned with evolution on our deathbed? What a stupid point.


I think most these...bah humbuggers...would hope there really is a God.

Hoping that there is a God and there actually being a God are two different things.

[quoteWithout a God in your life you are here for a short time then dead as a door nail.

Just because it doesn't sound good doesn't mean it is not true


Why set yourself for that? Why not have some hope, some faith in something? To play this.."you can't fool me, I'm too smart"....gets you what? It don't get you a damn thing, you gain nothing by taking that stance.

So people should go against reason to believe in something that doesn't make sense? Just out of fear? Sounds like Pascal's wager.



When I was a kid I once asked my great grandma.."where is grandpa?" That got a.."he is up in Heaven, smiling down on us". I liked that. Sure beat the hell out of hearing.."he's worm food".

If I told you that you would survive without a scratch and become a billionaire if you jumped off a bridge, would you believe me? Sounds nice, doesn't it?

More idiotic points from RaZon.

[TheSkeptic]

Give some examples

Check your PM.

I'll send one to anyone else who hasn't seen it and wants to know. I've kind of realized that I'm not really in a position to leave that up.



When you become an old man/woman and start realizing that it won't be long until you won't be here any longer. I'd want to think that just maybe there is a better place. I doubt you'd be too concerned over evolution and is there a God and can He be proven. I think most these...bah humbuggers...would hope there really is a God.

Without a God in your life you are here for a short time then dead as a door nail. Why set yourself for that? Why not have some hope, some faith in something? To play this.."you can't fool me, I'm too smart"....gets you what? It don't get you a damn thing, you gain nothing by taking that stance.

When I was a kid I once asked my great grandma.."where is grandpa?" That got a.."he is up in Heaven, smiling down on us". I liked that. Sure beat the hell out of hearing.."he's worm food".

I think what you're thinking about is people who just don't believe as opposed to straight-up atheists. That said, I get what you're saying.

[RaZon]

Why would we be concerned with evolution on our deathbed? What a stupid point.



Just because it doesn't sound good doesn't mean it is not true



So people should go against reason to believe in something that doesn't make sense? Just out of fear? Sounds like Pascal's wager.




If I told you that you would survive without a scratch and become a billionaire if you jumped off a bridge, would you believe me? Sounds nice, doesn't it?

More idiotic points from RaZon.


As usual you totally missed the point...:rolleyes

Once again...slowing it down for numbnuts here:rolleyes

Once death becomes a very real situation because you are pushing 75, you might wanna start really thinking things over. Are you really too smart to buy into something billions of others trust in? So you believe in evolution and nobody has proven the existence of God......big fucking deal! Do you really wanna play that right now? You might wanna cover your ass.

There ya go dumbass.

Don't bother responding unlike you I don't disrespect threads. What a moron:rolleyes

[DMC]

People in psych wards manifest demons all the time, but it's amazing the demons some sedatives and a smack across the back of the head will pull from you.

[redzero]

:lol How am I disrespecting a thread about religion by talking about religion?

And since when did many people believing in something make it more likely to be true? Also, why would I believe in something out of fear? If I don't believe that God exists for good reasons, I am not going to abandon those reasons just because I don't want to go to hell. Furthermore, how do you know that believing will get you into heaven? How do you know that there aren't multiple gods? What makes you think that you believe in the right God?

[DMC]

People who believe in faith healing likely have the same criteria for belief as those who believe in ghosts and bigfoot. They believe what they hear, and their mind readily accepts what they see as supporting evidence without skepticism.

[DMC]

:lol How am I disrespecting a thread about religion by talking about religion?

And since when did many people believing in something make it more likely to be true? Also, why would I believe in something out of fear? If I don't believe that God exists for good reasons, I am not going to abandon those reasons just because I don't want to go to hell. Furthermore, how do you know that believing will get you into heaven? How do you know that there aren't multiple gods? What makes you think that you believe in the right God?

Why are you mad at God?

[Oh, Gee!!]

regardless of religious bent, you must admit that the historical (fictional?) person named "Jesus of Nazareth" changed the course of humanity. that alone is very powerful stuff. he is the most important historical figure in the history of our universe (all of existence?) to date.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've heard stories of people surviving snake bites longer than they should have been able to as well.

-t4rYy8766k


]Oh, I should also mention again that I've seen people get healed as well.

I saw it too.

HjuEIQQggUQ

[RaZon]

How many churchs are out there? Yet some people think they know better...hahaha!!! This, well if you can't prove it, is so fucking lame. Prove you are envious, prove you had a dream last night, well? Big deal we have something else that can't be proven...wow! To, you can't fool me...:rolleyes

How many things were totally unheard of 300 years ago that we take for granted today...well? Tell somebody 300 years ago about the cell phone...you'd be laughed at.

We don't know shit, not you, not me, not nobody. So why not have faith in "a" God? The negatives are what? Oh yeah...you can't fool me, I'm too smart...hahaha!!!!!!!

I don't buy into the Bible stories at all, I also can't buy all this just happened.

[Oh, Gee!!]

We don't know shit, not you, not me, not nobody.

yet, you know enough to ridicule people for their convictions?

[redzero]

How many churchs are out there? Yet some people think they know better...hahaha!!!

How many mosques are out there? Why aren't you a Muslim?


This, well if you can't prove it, is so fucking lame.

Why should i believe in the supernatural when there is nothing that shows that the supernatural exists?


Prove you are envious, prove you had a dream last night, well? Big deal we have something else that can't be proven...wow!

There is a gigantic difference between believing that dreams exist and believing that magic exists. To try to equate the two is ludicrous.


To, you can't fool me...:rolleyes

This doesn't make any sense.



How many things were totally unheard of 300 years ago that we take for granted today...well? Tell somebody 300 years ago about the cell phone...you'd be laughed at.

False equivalence. You're comparing the natural to the supernatural. There is science behind the cellphone. What evidence is behind God? People believing is not evidence.


We don't know shit, not you, not me, not nobody. So why not have faith in "a" God?

Why have faith in a God? Just because you say so?


The negatives are what? Oh yeah...you can't fool me, I'm too smart...hahaha!!!!!!!

Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If not, why?

[RaZon]

yet, you know enough to ridicule people for their convictions?

I don't know jack about it and neither does anyone else. So we have these options....

1.the hell with God, which will means it will be you taking a nose dive into hell, and burn for all eternity.

2.have faith in Him, spent eternity in paradise.

3.worm food

Hmmmm....lets see here...

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't know jack about it and neither does anyone else.

So why are you pushing your thoughts about these matters on us?

[RaZon]

redzero

Don't I keep saying..."a"...God. It doesn't matter what name we humans call Him.

Hell yes the supernatural exists. I'm not trying to be cute here..ok? Look at Usian Bolt.....he does the supernatual. Dead serious! How about that little old lady lifting a car off her son?

Prove you had a dream, it can't be done. Impossible!

You gain what by not having faith is.."a"...God. Try....nothing! You do know people who do believe in God, you know what they gain....right?

Give me the adult redzone, save the little kid bullshit.

[redzero]

I don't know jack about it and neither does anyone else. So we have these options....

1.the hell with God, which will means it will be you taking a nose dive into hell, and burn for all eternity.

2.have faith in Him, spent eternity in paradise.

3.worm food

Hmmmm....lets see here...

What about if you choose the wrong God? What if you believed and there was no heaven? What if you believed but not in the right way? There are way more than just three outcomes.

[RaZon]

What about if you choose the wrong God? What if you believed and there was no heaven? What if you believed but not in the right way? There are way more than just three outcomes.

You know what the word...faith...means? There are no guarantees, we all know that that's why it's called.........what? One thing for sure, if don't have any faith you will either burn in Hell or feed the worms. You might wanna gamble that, not me. Turning your back on a possible savior is a wise move....:rolleyes Hope you aren't in any decision making capacities where you work.

[TheSkeptic]

-t4rYy8766k



I saw it too.

HjuEIQQggUQ

Obviously not like that. A lot of televangelists are frauds. I'll admit that without any prodding.

I know it sounds unbelievable but I saw what I saw. I was very skeptical but there was one lady who got healed that I paid particular attention to.

It's easy for you to sit back and laugh about it but this happened right in front of me. I was there and I saw the whole thing from start to finish. I can't just discount things like that or the experiences of the people I know who are close to me.

Don't believe if you don't want to but yeesh. I'm just answering the question Blake put to me.

[redzero]

Don't I keep saying..."a"...God. It doesn't matter what name we humans call Him.

Why believe?


Hell yes the supernatural exists.

Prove it.


Look at Usian Bolt.....he does the supernatual. Dead serious! How about that little old lady lifting a car off her son?

Neither of those examples is supernatural. You don't know the meaning of the word.


Prove you had a dream, it can't be done. Impossible!

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REM_sleep


You gain what by not having faith is.."a"...God. Try....nothing! You do know people who do believe in God, you know what they gain....right?

They gain a false belief that their lives have some greater meaning.


Give me the adult redzone, save the little kid bullshit.

Stop bitching and stay on subject.


One thing for sure, if don't have any faith you will either burn in Hell or feed the worms.

I'll ask this question again: What makes you think that there are only three outcomes? You say this with certainty, so I'd like to here your explanation.

[RaZon]

Why believe?



Prove it.



Neither of those examples is supernatural. You don't know the meaning of the word.



Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REM_sleep



They gain a false belief that their lives have some greater meaning.



Stop bitching and stay on subject.



I'll ask this question again: What makes you think that there are only three outcomes? You say this with certainty, so I'd like to here your explanation.


You must not understand the word supernatural....look it up! There are things going on today that a 1000 years ago would have been considered supernatural..you disagree?

We cannot prove a dream. Prove you were falling in that dream.

Three options..

You have faith in "a" God just maybe you'll end up in Heaven.

If you have no faith in "a" God you will burn in hell if you are wrong and there is "a" God.

There is no God which means there is no Hell either. So you just rot.

[mouse]

So why are you pushing your thoughts about these matters on us?

Because it's a public forum?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Because it's a public forum?

your mother is a public forum.

[RaZon]

your mother is a public forum.

As a by stander you just got owned. When you have to resort to..yo mama...your ass is whipped.

[Oh, Gee!!]

As a by stander you just got owned. When you have to resort to..yo mama...your ass is whipped.

your mom is whipped...........


by my dick.

[redzero]

You must not understand the word supernatural....look it up!

http://i.word.com/idictionary/supernatural
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

What about Usain Bolt transcends the laws of nature? Just because he is ridiculously fast doesn't mean he's supernatural. If you throw the term around like that, it becomes meaningless.


We cannot prove a dream.

False.


Prove you were falling in that dream.

Different matter entirely. This boils down to whether one chooses to believe somebody's story or not. This is in no way similar to the supernatural. Believing that somebody had a dream about falling doesn't take the same faith that believing that God exists takes.



Three options..

How do you know that there are just three options? Third time asking you.


You have faith in "a" God just maybe you'll end up in Heaven.

What if I believe and I don't get into heaven? What if there is a God but no heaven?


If you have no faith in "a" God you will burn in hell if you are wrong and there is "a" God.

What if I don't believe and I still get into heaven?


There is no God which means there is no Hell either. So you just rot.

What happens if there is more than one god?

How do you know that there are only three outcomes?

[RaZon]

your mom is whipped...........


by my dick.

Dude, I'm not 14, ok? That silly shit tells me you are.

[mouse]

your mother is a public forum.

would you like to be a Moderator?

Please say yes! I always wanted my Mom to get pinked!

I think she's pretty in Pink.

Also can you ban one of her TRolls? her alternate screen name FatFreddy88 is harassing me.

[RaZon]

http://i.word.com/idictionary/supernatural
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

What about Usain Bolt transcends the laws of nature? Just because he is ridiculously fast doesn't mean he's supernatural. If you throw the term around like that, it becomes meaningless.



False.



Different matter entirely. This boils down to whether one chooses to believe somebody's story or not. This is in no way similar to the supernatural. Believing that somebody had a dream about falling doesn't take the same faith that believing that God exists takes.




How do you know that there are just three options? Third time asking you.



What if I believe and I don't get into heaven? What if there is a God but no heaven?



What if I don't believe and I still get into heaven?



What happens if there is more than one god?

How do you know that there are only three outcomes?


Struck out on all those.

My point is...you can't "PROVE!!" a dream...:rolleyes

The year is 1891, what do you think the 100m World Record was then? Yes a 9.58 is Supernatural.

ONE MORE TIME....

FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....do you understand that word? Christians trust in their bible. What does it tell them? Once again....FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If it's all bullshit ok....it's bullshit.

I gave you the three options. There are no more. Nothing about this can be proven I've already admitted that. Prove there are other options...well?

[RaZon]

Let me add this...

I've known a lot of people in my life. Everything from millionaires to bums on the street. One thing I've picked up on is the ones who do buy into "a" God are far more content/intelligent/well adjusted to their surroundings/life than those who play....."you can't fool me, I'm too smart".

Just an observation.

Intelligent people realize not everything can be explained. While the simpleton...can you prove it, huh? huh? can ya? can ya?

[redzero]

My point is...you can't "PROVE!!" a dream...:

You can't prove a dream what?


The year is 1891, what do you think the 100m World Record was then? Yes a 9.58 is Supernatural.

People get better and records are shattered. Where does the supernatural come into play? Improbability and impossibility are two different things.


I gave you the three options.

You asserted that there are three outcomes, and I am asking you to prove it.


There are no more.

You know this how?


Nothing about this can be proven I've already admitted that.

Okay, so you are just making baseless assertions.


Prove there are other options...well?

Hold on, wait a minute. Where are you getting these outcomes from in the first place? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[mouse]

My point is...you can't "PROVE!!" a dream...:rolleyes



are your sure?

V57lotnKGF8

[mouse]

I've known a lot of people in my life. Everything from millionaires to bums on the street.

which one's smell better?

[RaZon]

You can't prove a dream what?



People get better and records are shattered. Where does the supernatural come into play? Improbability and impossibility are two different things.



You asserted that there are three outcomes, and I am asking you to prove it.



You know this how?



Okay, so you are just making baseless assertions.



Hold on, wait a minute. Where are you getting these outcomes from in the first place? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Dude, you don't get anything do you? Like talking to a little kid:rolleyes

In 1968 Bob Beamon long jumped over 29 feet. Tell someone in 1880 that someday we'd see a 29 foot jump.....IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!

Do you read? I already said nothing about this can be proved. So you can't disprove anything either.

It's all a bunch of gibberish. So you go with what's best for you, it sure isn't worm food or burn in Hell.

[redzero]

In 1968 Bob Beamon long jumped over 29 feet. Tell someone in 1880 that someday we'd see a 29 foot jump.....IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!

Are you retarded? How is that an example of the supernatural? How is that outside the realm of understanding? You are making the term meaningless. Just because people think that something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible. There is nothing supernatural about Usain Bolt. His speed can be explained through natural means.


I already said nothing about this can be proved. So you can't disprove anything either.

I don't have to prove shit because I'm not the one making the claim.


It's all a bunch of gibberish. So you go with what's best for you, it sure isn't worm food or burn in Hell.

:lol You say that all of this is just based on faith and then go right back to asserting that there are only three outcomes. Can you even keep track of your own argument?

[RaZon]

Are you retarded? How is that an example of the supernatural? How is that outside the realm of understanding? You are making the term meaningless. Just because people think that something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible. There is nothing supernatural about Usain Bolt. His speed can be explained through natural means.



I don't have to prove shit because I'm not the one making the claim.



:lol You say that all of this is just based on faith and then go right back to asserting that there are only three outcomes. Can you even keep track of your own argument?

I'm not the one arguing, you are. There are three outcomes, that is arguing? That is a statement. If you disagree then prove your point....see how that works:rolleyes

You are totally missing the point...AGAIN/AS USUAL...concerning superhuman/supernatural feats. Done trying to explain, you are too dense.

Are you really this...DUH!

Whoa~~~~~~~~~

[redzero]

:lmao You don't know what supernatural means and you don't know what argue means.

You assert that there are three outcomes. I am asking you to back up that assertion and you can't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Obviously not like that. A lot of televangelists are frauds. I'll admit that without any prodding.

I know it sounds unbelievable but I saw what I saw. I was very skeptical but there was one lady who got healed that I paid particular attention to.

It's easy for you to sit back and laugh about it but this happened right in front of me. I was there and I saw the whole thing from start to finish. I can't just discount things like that or the experiences of the people I know who are close to me.

Don't believe if you don't want to but yeesh. I'm just answering the question Blake put to me.

Do you have one shreda of evidence other than that you claim it to be true? i find it awfully convenient that these miracles are never corroborated. Its very similar to the claims about whales and zombies.

[Insomniac]

Evertime I get some shut eye is a miracle.

[Blake]

When you become an old man/woman and start realizing that it won't be long until you won't be here any longer. I'd want to think that just maybe there is a better place. I doubt you'd be too concerned over evolution and is there a God and can He be proven. I think most these...bah humbuggers...would hope there really is a God.

Without a God in your life you are here for a short time then dead as a door nail. Why set yourself for that? Why not have some hope, some faith in something? To play this.."you can't fool me, I'm too smart"....gets you what? It don't get you a damn thing, you gain nothing by taking that stance.

When I was a kid I once asked my great grandma.."where is grandpa?" That got a.."he is up in Heaven, smiling down on us". I liked that. Sure beat the hell out of hearing.."he's worm food".

Putting faith in the morals and laws in the Bible keeps/has helped keep our society from moving forward.

If Bible thumpers got their way 100% of the time, the Earth would still be the center of the universe and gays would be in jail.....or worse.

[CitizenDwayne]

Putting faith in the morals and laws in the Bible keeps/has helped keep our society from moving forward.

If Bible thumpers got their way 100% of the time, the Earth would still be the center of the universe and gays would be in jail.....or worse.
Couldn't agree more. We need to stop trying to appease these people and treat them as they are...insane retards.

[Amarelooms]

Couldn't agree more. We need to stop trying to appease these people and treat them as they are...insane retards.

Very true sons....the over religious..of any damn religion should be mocked and made fun of. Too bad most smart people just ignore them... if there is a God he doesn't give a flying fuck what you call yourself or if you go to church morons.....WAKE THE FUCK UP....stop killing eachother over bullshit

:elephant

[RandomGuy]

Ok on that point it's a draw I see your point.

Even Einstein's life of sun formula "E = m · c2" the many researching since then.

And with all the satellite data and Hubble telescope results you want to act like the Sun is only getting larger is your right and unless we both visit the Sun who is to say if I am off a ft or two.

But I see your point. Maybe it was just the right amount of Bud light and THC but i have to give you a pass since I can't give you the evidence you ask for without using someone else s data then I can't expect you to explain how the Universe was formed.

so we can call it a draw (on that point) and move on to the next point?....


I am curious as to why if the Mississippi River loses a football field of mud every hour why wouldn't it be much wider than it is today?

Given the fact the earth is even "500 Million years old" 3 1/2 Billion less than what Scientist claim.

You see how the word "Billion" is just pure nonsense?

We don't have to agree on everything but we can at least agree when we smell bullshit.

It isn't a "draw".

You have consistantly made factual errors, and used provably false logic to attempt to show that the age of the universe is something other than what is generally held to be billions of years.

You have been shown that attempting to calculate ages of the universe based on current rates of something (sun shrinking, moon receding) are not possible, then you go on and do the exact same thing for the width of Mississipi.

That calculation is flawed, for the same reason the other two were flawed.

I can draw on observable, reproducible science that has been reviewed, reproduced, and confirmed.

That is how science works.

[RandomGuy]

Let me add this...

I've known a lot of people in my life. Everything from millionaires to bums on the street. One thing I've picked up on is the ones who do buy into "a" God are far more content/intelligent/well adjusted to their surroundings/life than those who play....."you can't fool me, I'm too smart".

Just an observation.

Intelligent people realize not everything can be explained. While the simpleton...can you prove it, huh? huh? can ya? can ya?

I've known a lot of people in my life. Everything from millionaires to bums on the street. One thing I've picked up on is the ones who don't buy into "a" God are far more content/intelligent/well adjusted to their surroundings/life than those who play "I believe it, just because."

Just an observation.

Intelligent people realize that not everything can currently be explained. While the simpleton...

You get the point.

[RandomGuy]

When you become an old man/woman and start realizing that it won't be long until you won't be here any longer. I'd want to think that just maybe there is a better place. I doubt you'd be too concerned over evolution and is there a God and can He be proven. I think most these...bah humbuggers...would hope there really is a God.

Without a God in your life you are here for a short time then dead as a door nail. Why set yourself for that? Why not have some hope, some faith in something? To play this.."you can't fool me, I'm too smart"....gets you what? It don't get you a damn thing, you gain nothing by taking that stance.

When I was a kid I once asked my great grandma.."where is grandpa?" That got a.."he is up in Heaven, smiling down on us". I liked that. Sure beat the hell out of hearing.."he's worm food".

I don't need a big sky daddy taking care of me. From everything I see, he really sucks at it anyway.

I don't need the false hopes of some fairytale afterlife either.

Life is all the more precious and all the more beautiful knowing that it is temporary and will come to an end.

The harm that such false hopes do, is that when one bases ones life on things that aren't true, it hobbles your ability to effectively deal with reality.

At some point, I stopped believing in Santa Claus, and that wasn't hope that I gave up, it was a simple childhood worldview.

[RandomGuy]

How many churchs are out there? Yet some people think they know better...hahaha!!! This, well if you can't prove it, is so fucking lame. Prove you are envious, prove you had a dream last night, well? Big deal we have something else that can't be proven...wow! To, you can't fool me...:rolleyes

How many things were totally unheard of 300 years ago that we take for granted today...well? Tell somebody 300 years ago about the cell phone...you'd be laughed at.

We don't know shit, not you, not me, not nobody. So why not have faith in "a" God? The negatives are what? Oh yeah...you can't fool me, I'm too smart...hahaha!!!!!!!

I don't buy into the Bible stories at all, I also can't buy all this just happened.

300 years ago, you would be right in doubting that a small object using electricity could send invisible messages through the air, and then re-create your voice on the other side of the planet.

5000 years ago you would be right doubting that the sun was a star, just like the tiny things we see at night.

Until such things are proven, you should doubt them.

That is the default position.

Do you see the logical inconsistency in your statement here?

(edit)

This is an argument from ignorance logical fallacy by the way.

We once believed it was gods pulling a flaming chariot through the sky that made that giant light thing move around. Now we know it is a star.

We once believed that it was evil spirits or anger of the gods that made people sick. Now we know it is microorganisms.

The gaps in our knowledge have a habit of turning out to be filled by things other than the supernatural. That should make anyone hesitate a bit before filling in such gaps with unprovable theories.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know jack about it and neither does anyone else. So we have these options....

1.the hell with God, which will means it will be you taking a nose dive into hell, and burn for all eternity.

2.have faith in Him, spent eternity in paradise.

3.worm food

Hmmmm....lets see here...

The problem is that religious people all claim to have "the" solution/answer, and that there are hundreds of such answers.

They can't all be right, and if one of them is, you have no way of knowing which one is the right one.

If that is the case then you are, quite probably wrong, when you put your belief in a Christian God, because more people DON'T believe in that theory than do. It is the answer you are most familiar with, but that is merely by the chance of your birth.

Given that your three possibility decision tree is a whole lot larger in reality.

If there is a God, and he/it wants me to believe, then it would be easy for it make itself known. Flaming letters in the sky, or hardwired knowledge of some sort. Holy books and the written word are not the method of transmitting information that the creator of the universe would need. That is the way humans communicate ideas.

[TeyshaBlue]

I've known a lot of people in my life. Everything from millionaires to bums on the street. One thing I've picked up on is the ones who don't buy into "a" God are far more content/intelligent/well adjusted to their surroundings/life than those who play "I believe it, just because."

Just an observation.

Intelligent people realize that not everything can currently be explained. While the simpleton...

You get the point.

That's odd. I've "known" alot of people in my life, and possibly have traveled a bit more as well. My experience is a mixed bag from both with a slight edge to well adjusted (relative to their surroundings/communities/lives) going to those who believe.
I certainly don't buy into the notion that intelligence is predicated upon belief or vice-versa.

You get the point.

[TeyshaBlue]

Pssst....Mouse in an outlier.:lol

[RandomGuy]

That's odd. I've "known" alot of people in my life, and possibly have traveled a bit more as well. My experience is a mixed bag from both with a slight edge to well adjusted (relative to their surroundings/communities/lives) going to those who believe.
I certainly don't buy into the notion that intelligence is predicated upon belief or vice-versa.

You get the point.

I do as well.

My point was less asserting intelligence/togetherness has much do to with faith than with the small value of anecdotal evidence.

[RandomGuy]

Assuming you don't want me to relate other people's experiences, I have seen people getting healed before. I think that's the type of evidence you're looking for right?

Healing happens all the time to people who don't pray, or have no, or even different faiths.

Why is it that God only heals things that our bodies are capable of healing by themselves? i.e. why doesn't God heal amputees?

What would your explanation of such healing be if they didn't pray or were prayed for? We have rather solid data that there is no statistical difference in healing rates between the two groups.



Why do you think God looks for the quality of "I'm willing to murder children" in his followers?


I don't think they had that kind of relationship tbh.

That is exactly what God asked of his followers. Jepthah and Abraham. "murder your child to make me happy". That is what the LORD told Moses to do.

Jepthah sacrificed his first child, a daughter, but God changed his mind about accepting sacrifice when it came to the male child. That is yet another sublty here that indicates this is less about a God then about stories made up by primitive peoples, where the value of sons far outweighed that of daughters.



It's not "I'm willing to murder children" so much as "I'm going to put God and my obligations to him first in my life". That's the attitude Jepthah took.

If you want to argue that that was the wrong thing to do and that he should've gone with the first animal...well I won't disagree.

We can at least agree that Jepthah should have done something else, but you haven't admitted God should have acted to stop it.

It is exactly "I'm willing to murder children".
Moses, acting for God did it. Jepthah did it. Abraham was going to do it.


------------------------------------------------------------------


If you promised the mayor you would burn your child alive to get what you wanted, what do you think the mayor would do?

or, if you prefer:

What woud *you* do if someone wanted something from you, and said they were ready to burn their child alive in order to get it?



Weird. I thought I answered this but I must've missed it.

Well of course I'd move out of concern for the child first.

I asked what the mayor should have done when someone promised to burn their child alive.

The answer to that question is, or should be, "The mayor, or I would turn them into the police before they harm their child".

When authority figures start asking for human sacrifices, the only moral thing to do is to refuse. If you are that authority figure, you have a moral duty to stop people from doing obviously immoral things in your stead.



Again, it's different in this case in that he didn't say he was willing to burn his child. He just promised the first thing out of his house and that happened to be his child. That's a distinction that makes a difference to me although I can understand why it wouldn't to you.

That is an irrelevant distinction. Saying there is a distinction is to place a potted plant or a chicken on the same level as a human child. You don't believe that any more than I do.

Here we get to the important part.

You or I would act to stop someone from murdering a child.

God did not stop Jepthah. Neither did God punish him or condemn him for his actions.

Our moral system is arguably superior to that of God's on that basis, and this is only ONE example among many. There is a reason that the parable of Jepthah is glossed over by sermons and Sunday schools.

Such a being does not deserve my deference, or faith, only condemnation.

[mouse]

It isn't a "draw".

You have consistantly made factual errors, and used provably false logic to attempt to show that the age of the universe is something other than what is generally held to be billions of years.

Not all true many of my claims Science has no answer for as you don't also.

If your going to prove to me The Earth is 4 Billion years old show me the hard data and not some old Science book texts from the 70s




You have been shown that attempting to calculate ages of the universe based on current rates of something (sun shrinking, moon receding) are not possible,

Why is it not possible? Why can't a comet with a very long tail 25 years from now be an older comet with a smaller tail, are you saying Comets don't burn out?

Are you saying Scientist themselves never use the fact that something is being depleted in front of their eyes as a means to figure out how long it will be before it's gone?

Are you saying the Erosion of the planet is not real, it's not happening?

Are you that closed minded just because you tossed out a scenario about you getting shorter as time goes on you not willing to look into my claims?




then you go on and do the exact same thing for the width of Mississipi.

You have to say why "all" my claims are false don't try and debunk all of them with one attempt of debunking just one of my points.


That calculation is flawed, for the same reason the other two were flawed.

Why, where is your proof?



I can draw on observable, reproducible science that has been reviewed, reproduced, and confirmed.

Show me how the Mississippi river would not be narrower if you went back in time.


That is how science works.

I thought Science was steadily revising itself as it learns new things everyday?

Didn't Science at one time claim tobacco was good for you in a Luck Strikes cigarette ad?

Science is always changing why are you not supporting that fact?


We know Niagara Falls reseeds around four ft a year due to the amount of water that is constantly washing over its edge if the Earth was even 1/2 of a Million years old shouldn't Niagara falls be in Canada somewhere?

[Blake]

Any of you ACTUALLY believe mouse

[IWantsACuatro]

Amarelooms with the pathetic troll job. Anyone knows bringing up religion in a thread title is automatically a 30 page thread.

No sport.

:elephant

[Blake]

Amarelooms with the pathetic troll job. Anyone knows bringing up religion in a thread title is automatically a 30 page thread.

No sport.

:elephant

I enjoy them every time. :tu

I've got eternal life for whoever makes the 1000th post!

[Woo Bum-kon]

Didn't Science at one time claim tobacco was good for you in a Luck Strikes cigarette ad?

:lmao

Scient--I'm sorry. :lol Wow. Just wow. Did science claim that tobacco was good for people or did shills claim that tobacco was good for people?

[mouse]

:lmao

Scient--I'm sorry. :lol Wow. Just wow. Did science claim that tobacco was good for people or did shills claim that tobacco was good for people?


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/ChesterfieldScience.jpg

[cantthinkofanything]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/ChesterfieldScience.jpg

Doesn't say that it's good for you.

[mouse]

I don't see any Intelligent contributions made by anyone on this subject besides myself and it's beginning to bore me a bit.

[Blake]

So science proved that Chesterfield leaves no unpleasant after taste?

Has that since been proven to be false by "science"?

[Woo Bum-kon]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/ChesterfieldScience.jpg

You didn't answer my question. Are you honestly trying to knock the scientific method because there are people who will say anything to get money? Was there a consensus in the scientific community that cigarettes were healthy?

[Blake]

I don't see any Intelligent contributions made by anyone on this subject besides myself and it's beginning to bore me a bit.

You're not intelligent enough to recognize the intelligent contributions.

[Woo Bum-kon]

That ad doesn't even claim that those cigarettes are good for you.

[mouse]

Doesn't say that it's good for you.


Tobacco could be GOOD for you:

Now scientists have adapted the much maligned tobacco

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2017195/GM-tobacco-GOOD-Plant-used-create-HIV-drug-landmark-trial.html#ixzz1sF9dzf8s


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/LuckyStrikeDoctor.jpg

[Woo Bum-kon]

Now scientists have adapted the much maligned tobacco

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2017195/GM-tobacco-GOOD-Plant-used-create-HIV-drug-landmark-trial.html#ixzz1sF9dzf8s


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/LuckyStrikeDoctor.jpg

That article doesn't say anything about cigarettes being healthy.

:lmao Mouse is the smuggest douchebag on this site, and he doesn't even have any reason to be one.

[russellgoat]

Putting faith in the morals and laws in the Bible keeps/has helped keep our society from moving forward.

If Bible thumpers got their way 100% of the time, the Earth would still be the center of the universe and gays would be in jail.....or worse.

Well I know a lot of atheist people in this forum that hates and makes fun of gay people. Not being religious doesn't mean you will not behave like them.

[mouse]

Hey kids lets play in the snow.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/club-posters-are-idiots.jpg

[Woo Bum-kon]

Mouse dodging again. No surprises here.

[mouse]

That article doesn't say anything about cigarettes being healthy.


Doctor Says Trust Me, Cigarettes Are Healthy
http://open.salon.com/blog/jeffrey_dach_md/2009/01/04/your_doctor_says_have_a_smoke_its_healthy


gCMzjJjuxQI


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/tumblr_lq09jxu2SW1qmhpx5o1_500png.jpg



:lmao Mouse is the smuggest douchebag on this site, and he doesn't even have any reason to be one.

Congrats you made the Blake RedZero non intelligent reply list, now have fun talking to yourself.

[mouse]

You're not intelligent enough to recognize the intelligent contributions.



I call you a stupid fuck.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Somebody ask Mark Allen here this question, since he is trying to run away from the argument:

Was there a consensus in the scientific community that cigarettes were healthy?

[Blake]

Well I know a lot of atheist people in this forum that hates and makes fun of gay people. Not being religious doesn't mean you will not behave like them.

Yeah, there's assholes in all walks of life, but that's not relevant to what I said.

Bible law is extremely harsh on gays (and endorses slavery).

There's no book of atheism that forbids the gays or endorses slavery.

[mouse]

Somebody ask Mark Allen here this question, since he is trying to run away from the argument:


No reply list: Blake,RedZero,The Skeptic,Woo Bum-konand MLewis

[Blake]

:cry

You are really getting upset that I'm calling you a stupid fucking idiot?

You are also a stupid fucking hypocrite.

:lmao

[Blake]

No reply list: Blake,RedZero,The Skeptic,Woo Bum-konand MLewis

:cry :cry :cry

[TheSkeptic]

I'm really busy and not following the thread so I completely missed you. I hope this is okay...


Healing happens all the time to people who don't pray, or have no, or even different faiths.

Why is it that God only heals things that our bodies are capable of healing by themselves? i.e. why doesn't God heal amputees?


It depends on your definition.

For example, one of the people I remember the most was a woman who was blind. I know what you're thinking but I saw that she was blind because she and the people guiding her came up right in front of us. She wasn't just "legally blind" in the glasses-wearing sense of the term; she couldn't see a thing.

I don't think that her blindness would've been fixed on its own. Same for the cases I've heard of people regaining the ability to walk after being paralysed and stuff like that. I understand the position you've taken though.




What would your explanation of such healing be if they didn't pray or were prayed for? We have rather solid data that there is no statistical difference in healing rates between the two groups.


Yeah I saw that study. Interesting reading. A bit of a flaw in my opinion though. In Christianity at least, it's not a simple matter of praying and having it happen.

While everybody's encouraged to pray, there are certain people who are given the ability to heal as a spiritual gift.

I thought the study reflected more self-identified born-agains as opposed to those who were actually gifted in that area. It definitely felt like the results would end up going by the law of averages otherwise and it looks like they did.




That is exactly what God asked of his followers. Jepthah and Abraham. "murder your child to make me happy". That is what the LORD told Moses to do.

Jepthah sacrificed his first child, a daughter, but God changed his mind about accepting sacrifice when it came to the male child. That is yet another sublty here that indicates this is less about a God then about stories made up by primitive peoples, where the value of sons far outweighed that of daughters.


We can at least agree that Jepthah should have done something else, but you haven't admitted God should have acted to stop it.

It is exactly "I'm willing to murder children".
Moses, acting for God did it. Jepthah did it. Abraham was going to do it.


Not to nitpick, but I don't believe that happened to Moses. Abraham, yes. Jepthah did so unintentionally but it wasn't like God came up to him and told him to sacrifice his daughter.

I would also argue that the sons vs daughters thing was more cultural than anything else but there was a different case in the Bible where God allowed a man's daughters to inherit his property after his death in spite of the fact that they were women and everybody wanted to stop them. So I don't see why there isn't room for both.



I asked what the mayor should have done when someone promised to burn their child alive.

The answer to that question is, or should be, "The mayor, or I would turn them into the police before they harm their child".

When authority figures start asking for human sacrifices, the only moral thing to do is to refuse. If you are that authority figure, you have a moral duty to stop people from doing obviously immoral things in your stead.


That is an irrelevant distinction. Saying there is a distinction is to place a potted plant or a chicken on the same level as a human child. You don't believe that any more than I do.

I don't think he had that kind of a relationship with God.



Here we get to the important part.

You or I would act to stop someone from murdering a child.

God did not stop Jepthah. Neither did God punish him or condemn him for his actions.
...
Such a being does not deserve my deference, or faith, only condemnation.

Snipped for length. I was going to just PM you.

Again, I'm not convinced they had that kind of relationship though.

I was trying to be more objective but if you want my full take on this story I'll tell you:

You and I both agree that the sacrificing of the daughter was the wrong thing to do. Given God's behaviour with respect to this subject in similar situations (the Mosaic Law/ Abraham's situation where nobody died) I would think he'd be in agreement with us.

What has always caught my attention about this one, however, is how there wasn't really any direct communication in this instance. Jepthah was foxhole praying and then following through on what he promised no matter what the consequences were going to be. Hence the tragedy that unfolded. The thing is God never really said anything to him. He just took the victory in battle as a sign that sacrificing his daughter was his next course of action.

God doesn't step in and stop us from doing the wrong thing every time even if we end up hurting other people as a result of our actions. At the same time, the road to Hell is often paved with good intentions. I see the Jepthah situation sort of like that. Ergo, the fact that he was offering the first thing out of his house as opposed to his daughter is a distinction that's important to me. It indicates a prayer that wasn't thought through very well as opposed to something more sinister.

That said, Jepthah's intention was to put God first and to keep the promise he'd made.
Since God says repeatedly that he looks at the heart above all else, I think he'd acknowledge that Jepthah's heart was in the right place even if he did end up making a horrible mistake.

God and Jepthah didn't have the kind of communication you see with Moses and Abraham. It just doesn't work that way with everybody. Plus Jepthah was more a regular person who was interpreting events as he saw fit and I don't think he was necessarily a believer at the time that this happened. I see him more as a strong and upstanding unbeliever or perhaps a person who grew up in a religious home but didn't take those beliefs fully to heart. The type of person you'd meet every day if you lived back then.

I just feel like this was a place where a little bit of knowledge (God) combined with ignorance (of Mosaic Law) ended up causing problems. Other than the use of his name, I don't think God really had anything to do with this incident.

It's the same moral system RandomGuy.

And as for the bolded, I know I've read that line somewhere before.

[RandomGuy]

Not all true many of my claims Science has no answer for as you don't also.

If your going to prove to me The Earth is 4 Billion years old show me the hard data and not some old Science book texts from the 70s





Why is it not possible? Why can't a comet with a very long tail 25 years from now be an older comet with a smaller tail, are you saying Comets don't burn out?

Are you saying Scientist themselves never use the fact that something is being depleted in front of their eyes as a means to figure out how long it will be before it's gone?

Are you saying the Erosion of the planet is not real, it's not happening?

Are you that closed minded just because you tossed out a scenario about you getting shorter as time goes on you not willing to look into my claims?





You have to say why "all" my claims are false don't try and debunk all of them with one attempt of debunking just one of my points.



Why, where is your proof?




Show me how the Mississippi river would not be narrower if you went back in time.



I thought Science was steadily revising itself as it learns new things everyday?

Didn't Science at one time claim tobacco was good for you in a Luck Strikes cigarette ad?

Science is always changing why are you not supporting that fact?


We know Niagara Falls reseeds around four ft a year due to the amount of water that is constantly washing over its edge if the Earth was even 1/2 of a Million years old shouldn't Niagara falls be in Canada somewhere?

... and you still go with all the bullshit that has already been debunked, and simply declare "nuh-uh, it hasn't been debunked".

I know you troll for some things. That's OK, I can roll with that.

It is occasionally fun to show how stupid this shit is that you try to pass off.

At this point, though, I just don't feel it.

Either you are too stupifyingly ignorant to understand how dumb the shit you post truly is, or you are trolling.

Come back when you have some new shit. All this is just old, recycled garbage.

If you don't understand how this has all been debunked already, and how illogical it all is, google is that way. I'm not going to do your work for you.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah I saw that study. Interesting reading. A bit of a flaw in my opinion though. In Christianity at least, it's not a simple matter of praying and having it happen.


If God answers medical prayers, then why do you need health insurance?

Simply think it through. If what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible is true, and if all the stories about medical miracles in inspirational literature are true, and if the cure of Jeanna Giese is true, and if your belief in God and the power of prayer is true, and if God has a plan for you, then why do you ever need to visit a doctor or go to the hospital? Why don't you simply pray for a cure whenever you get sick? In fact, why not pray preemptively every day -- "Dear God, I have faith that you will protect me from all illnesses today, Amen" -- and go through your life completely healthy?

The reason I ask this is because the statement that Jesus makes in Mark 11:24 is so simple:


Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

So is what he says in John 14:14:

If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

There is this statement in Psalms chapter 41:

1 Blessed is he who has regard for the weak;
the Lord delivers him in times of trouble.
2 The Lord will protect him and preserve his life;
he will bless him in the land
and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.
3 The Lord will sustain him on his sickbed
and restore him from his bed of illness.

In Mark 16, Jesus talks about the laying on of hands:

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.

But even more remarkable is James 5:15, where the Bible says:

And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.

These are powerful verses. Keep in mind, according to the Standard Model of God, that these are the words of an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect God. And James 5:15 is completely unambiguous. If these words are true and perfect, it seems like a faithful person should have no need for health insurance.

----------------------------------


Let's simply look at an example. Imagine that the rate of remission for some particularly nasty type of cancer is 5%. That means that if 20 people get this type of cancer, it is almost always fatal. Only one in 20 of the people who get the disease will survive. Knowing this, you can see the reality:


20 people contract the disease

All of them have read James 5:15, so all of them pray.

19 of them die

The one who lives proclaims, "I prayed to the Lord and the Lord answered my prayers! My disease is cured! It is a miracle! I KNEW God would answer my prayers!"

You never hear about the 19 who died. No one ever writes about that in a magazine. "Person prays, then dies" is not a great headline. And since they are dead, you will never hear from any of the people who had a deadly experience with prayer.

Therefore, if you don't look at all the facts around the "answered prayer," and you only hear about the one out of twenty prayers that succeed, it appears that prayer is successful.

The fact is, people who pray die from this disease at exactly the same rate as people who do not.

We can see the reality of this situation simply by opening our eyes. But we do have to open our eyes -- We have to look at both the successes AND the failures of prayer to see the reality of our world. When we take a scientific approach and we do look at both sides, we see what is really happening.

When a prayer is answered, what is happening? It is nothing but a coincidence. We know this without a doubt in two different ways:

If we look at disease remission rates for praying people vs. non-praying people, and we control for all variables like income, known risk factors, etc., disease remission rates for the two groups are identical. People who pray for a cure gain no advantage from prayer.

We can take 200 sick people. With 100 of them we create a prayer circle and we pray for them. With the other 100 we do not. Then we look at what happens to those two groups of people. We find that both groups have the same outcome. The prayed-for group does not recuperate faster or live longer.

[RandomGuy]

What the bible says about such things is fairly unambiguous.

It isn't cherry picking.

Find someplace where it says that prayer doesn't work, if you think any of this is cherry picked.

[DoubtingThomas]

Sometimes seeing is believing.

[RandomGuy]

there are certain people who are given the ability to heal as a spiritual gift.


All those people would have to do to claim a million dollar prize would be to prove their abilities.



http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

$1.2M actually:
http://www.randi.org/site/images/stories/evercore.pdf

Anyone with those kinds of abilities, if they were real, should want to prove this, and use the money for some good deeds or works.

Yet no one has come forward to take the money.

That is all it would take for me to believe this.

Just one, provable, documented bona fide person with supernatural healing abilities.

Everytime anybody with an ounce of skepticism subjects healers to scrutiny, you end up with perfectly normal explanations that have nothing to do with powers granted by God.

[RandomGuy]

Rationalization #1

Here is an explanation that you might have heard or used before:

The reason God cures thousands of cancers, infections, etc. each day but never intervenes with amputees is because it is not God's will to do that. It is not part of God's plan.
This explanation seems a little odd. Amputees really do seem to be getting the short end of God's plan if this is the case. If God answers prayers as promised in the Bible, and if God is performing all of the medical miracles that we read about in inspirational literature, then God should also be restoring amputated limbs. Why would God help cancer victims (e.g. Marilyn Hickey's mother) and people bitten by rabid bats (e.g. Jeanna Giese), but discriminate against amputees like this?

Keep in mind what Jesus promised:


If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]

If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]

Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]

Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]

Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]

There is no indication from Jesus that amputees will be ignored when they pray for medical help. The fact is, all five of these statements are completely false in the case of amputees.

The five quotes in the previous paragraph are all simple, straightforward statements. Doesn't "nothing will be impossible for you" mean "nothing will be impossible for you"? Jesus is God, and as an all-knowing being God knows how humans interpret sentences. If Jesus did not mean "nothing will be impossible for you," it seems like Jesus would have said something else. He also would not repeat that sentiment so many times. And Jesus is supposedly answering millions of prayers each day, so prayer-answering seems to be his intent

[RandomGuy]

Sorry mouse, most of your trolls are on my ignore list. I'm not going to take the time to un-ignore them.

[RandomGuy]

Such a being does not deserve my deference, or faith, only condemnation.



And as for the bolded, I know I've read that line somewhere before.

Others have probably expressed that sentiment, but the words are mine, and original.

It is the only logical conclusion if you read through the bible's nastier parts.

In the end, infinite torture for finite crimes... doesn't seem rational in anyway.

God is often thought of as a loving parent, but loving parents don't lock their kids in the basement and torture them if they do something wrong.

That isn't the action of a creator that I would worship, or a parent that I would respect.

It makes a lot more sense if think about claims in the bible from the standpoint of a member of a a priest ruling class that wanst people to keep paying hard earned tithes to you a few thousand years ago. It is easy to claim supernatural power to primitive peoples who have not learned much about our world.

What better way to get people to believe in your priestly authority than to say "if you don't believe, you will burn in Hell"?

[mouse]

Sorry mouse, most of your trolls are on my ignore list. I'm not going to take the time to un-ignore them.

I am only using one screen name you can check with slomo and Kori but don't worry yourself about putting me on any ignore list (very mature) I will add your name to the no reply list. I can't debate with someone who has a semi meltdown because I happen to call them RandomLie. Your losing what ever credibility you once had esse.

No Intelligent reply list: Blake,RedZero,The Skeptic,Woo Bum-konand MLewis,RandomLie

[Satan]

I like this Randomlie dude.

[mouse]

This fish is part of the fossil charts many ignorant posters in this topic use to prove Evolution and yet it's still alive?

So much for your Scientific data.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NVIyqlcHzR4/Rq3tnWC0A_I/AAAAAAAAA6Y/xvnT6qk7FEs/s400/capt_sge_ggb84_290707032442_photo03_photo_default+-+150%25.jpg
Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. In the early 1900s, evolutionists touted it as the first walking fish, the transition between fish and tetrapods. That is, until 1938 when one was found alive and unable to walk. Evolution theory says that pressures from competition and the environment force changes over time. In chapter 9 of his book, Darwin wrote of ancestor species in general: "If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants." Here is a coelacanth today, alive and unchanged like many "living fossils". Where is the evolution?





http://www.newgeology.us/coelacanth.jpg

Keep the Evolution comedy bullshit coming!

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

This fish is part of the fossil charts many ignorant posters in this topic use to prove Evolution and yet it's still alive?

So much for your Scientific data.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NVIyqlcHzR4/Rq3tnWC0A_I/AAAAAAAAA6Y/xvnT6qk7FEs/s400/capt_sge_ggb84_290707032442_photo03_photo_default+-+150%25.jpg
Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. In the early 1900s, evolutionists touted it as the first walking fish, the transition between fish and tetrapods. That is, until 1938 when one was found alive and unable to walk. Evolution theory says that pressures from competition and the environment force changes over time. In chapter 9 of his book, Darwin wrote of ancestor species in general: "If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants." Here is a coelacanth today, alive and unchanged like many "living fossils". Where is the evolution?


http://www.newgeology.us/coelacanth.jpg

Keep the Evolution comedy bullshit coming!

:lmao

The existance of old species are fully compatible with the theory of evolution.

Your inability to understand why that is does not disprove evolution, any more than your ignorance as to how comets are formed disproves modern physics.


Some species, such as the tuatara, horseshoe crab, cockroach, ginkgo, and coelacanth, are "fossil species." They have not evolved for millions of years.

Debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930.html

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lmao mouse

[RandomGuy]

I am only using one screen name you can check with slomo and Kori but don't worry yourself about putting me on any ignore list (very mature) I will add your name to the no reply list. I can't debate with someone who has a semi meltdown because I happen to call them RandomLie. Your losing what ever credibility you once had esse.

No Intelligent reply list: Blake,RedZero,The Skeptic,Woo Bum-konand MLewis,RandomLie

Meh.

You can't debate on this topic, because you are either trolling, or completely ignorant about scientific theories. THe fact that you can't accurately state the theories you are criticising says all anyone needs to know.

Reading all the ham-handed spamming of logically flawed and debunked creationist arguments, is a bit like watching a stone age tribesman out of the deep jungle shake their fist at airplanes to ward off evil spirits.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Mouse: [statement A]

RG: Here is why that statement is factually wrong or logically flawed. [scientific evidence][logical principles]

Mouse: "nuh-uh" [logically flawed statement about scientific evidence]

RG: That denial was logically flawed, your [statement A] has been debunked.

Mouse: "oh yeah, well..." [Statement B]

RG: Here is why that statement is factually wrong or logically flawed. [scientific evidence][logical principles]

Mouse: [misstatement of scientific theory] [flawed conclusion based on misstatement]

RG: That was a provable misstatement of scientific theory. [logical principles]

Mouse: "nuh-uh" [repeats misstatement]

RG: That is a misstatement of scientific theory.

Mouse: [logically flawed argument about scientific theory]

RG: That isn't right because [logical principles]

GOTO 10

[RandomGuy]

The list of debunked creationist claims is here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB

It is too long to fit into one post. I will spare y'all from that.

Doesn't take much to poke holes in most of them.

[redzero]

mouse will never stop copying and pasting shit from creationist websites, no matter how many times the crap he posted has been debunked. Same goes for moon landing conspiracy shit.

[purist]

you ask me how i know he lives; he lives within my heart.

[Blake]

you ask me how i know he lives; he lives within my heart.

:lol

That was usually always the last song that mercifully signaled the end of the church service.

If the Cowboys played at noon, we picked up Bill millers. Any other time it was Lubys at Central Park or North Star Malls.

[RandomGuy]

Since we have been using this theory to make predictions, it has a very good track record


When do they predict to cure cancer?

Did Science predict the huge Tsunami that killed 1000s?

So did the Dallas cowboys at one time.

So science is really nothing more than using an...

http://www.entertainmentearth.com/images/%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CMT30188lg.jpg


http://www.spellboundenterprises.com/store/images/categories/crystal-ball.jpg

Predictions using a theory would normally relate to that theory. Evolution is not about predicting tsunamis, it is about how live arose and got to the pont it is currently at.

If you had a background in science, you would know this.

Not having such a background, you assumed "prediction" meant something else.

Here is an example of what the theory of evolution predicts:

dK3O6KYPmEw

[FuzzyLumpkins]

GDHVi3h6ZXw

[mouse]

dK3O6KYPmEw

I don't support a Creator and I never claimed to be a creationist.


You don't read very well do you?

[Blake]

I don't support a Creator and I never claimed to be a creationist.


You don't read very well do you?

Explain how you think humans got here.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Mouse isn't a creationist, but he surely likes using arguments from creationists to prove his points.

[Blake]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (3 members and 1 guests) Blake, Phenomanul, mouse

Hi Phenomanul.

What are your thoughts on zoroastrianism?

[mouse]

Mouse isn't a creationist, but he surely likes using arguments from creationists to prove his points.

Woo Bum-kon isn't a Google shareholder, but he surely likes using arguments from Google to prove his points.

You don't have to be a Nazi to quote Hitler, you don't have to support PETA to use animal abuse photo you find on Google, but that is why your never going to make it debating me, your mind is very limited. I seriously doubt you will even understand the post I just made to you.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Yeah, it clearly takes skill and vast intelligence to repost creationist crap that his been debunked over and over again.

[mouse]

Explain how you think humans got here.


You're not intelligent enough to recognize the intelligent contributions.



I call you a stupid fuck.

[mouse]

Yeah, it clearly takes skill and vast intelligence to repost Evolutionist crap that his been debunked over and over again.

You seem clearly out of your league on this subject, my I suggest the "who is better looking Manu or Tony Parker" topic in the Spurs forum.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Might I suggest that people who barely understand the English language should not try to talk down to others?

[mouse]

Might I suggest that people who barely understand the English language should not try to talk down on others?


That would exclude half your Asian race you sure you want to do that?

Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany his English was terrible that didn't stop him from talking down to the limited minds.

Bring some facts to the topic and stop whining like a little girl.

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol The guy who kept announcing that he didn't like how people were responding to him, is now telling people to stop whining.

[Blake]

Cmon mouse, stop being a chicken shit.

Post your theory on how humans got here

[mouse]

Cmon mouse, stop being a chicken shit.

Post your theory on how humans got here
Someone old enough to buy beer ask me And I might answer them.

[Blake]

Someone old enough to buy beer ask me And I might answer them.

Naw, it's obvious that you're too scared to post your real thoughts.

[RandomGuy]

I don't support a Creator and I never claimed to be a creationist.


You don't read very well do you?

:lol mouse reads the title, but didn't watch the video to see the kind of prediction he is ridiculing.

That's ok. I have stopped expecting you to educate yourself. You obviously aren't interested.

[Bipolar Bob]

http://dsc.discovery.com/show-news/jesus-conspiracies.html

Jesus Conspiracies: Jesus' Lost Years" premieres Thursday, April 19 at 10p.m.

[mouse]

Two people claim the Ten Commandments is a great Movie.

One is an Atheist film critic the other is a Minister of a church.

That doesn't mean they both share the same views on the Bible.

I think the Grand Canyon was formed in a few years A creationist thinks It may have also.

That doesn't mean we share the same beliefs just because we post the same photos from the same site.


But you limited thinkers in this topic are determine to show others how ignorant you can be and thus I am done trying to educate you any further.

[Blake]

So both creation and evolution are wrong to you. Those are really the only two options I've ever seen.

What is a third option?

[Goliadnative]

Putting faith in the morals and laws in the Bible keeps/has helped keep our society from moving forward.

If Bible thumpers got their way 100% of the time, the Earth would still be the center of the universe and gays would be in jail.....or worse.

List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists)

[phyzik]

one of the problems associated with creationists is that they do not see the benefit of exploring the universe outside of Earth....

For example, and I doubt Mouse will refute this, many of them cry fervantly "why waste money on space instead of fixing cancer and such things?"

The problem with that is that it is short sighted. These types of peolpe dont even realize how nieve they are especially when using technologies like this very website that was benifited from by those same "quack jobs" that didnt focus on something out of our technological reach.


what most people fail to realize is that by understanding the universe outside of our world actually does impact our way of life in a better way. A very simple example would be non-stick frying pans. If it wasnt for the space race we probably wouldnt have that. Nevermind heat resistant ceramics, tempurpedic beds, MRE's (as far as longevity) and many other technical wonders that I dont care to list because people have short attention spans or near-sighted views of the world of science.

I dont, and will not, pretend that I know alot about the space beyond our little blue orb that orbits an insagnificant star, matching up with an estimated 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 other stars, but to me the proof has been laid out with humanities scientific, provable facts about our universe...

The burden of proof lies with those that believe in creation theory... Science has presented their proof and it is sound, creationists point to the equivalent of a harry potter book for proof. :lmao

[phyzik]

6RjW5-4IiSc

[FuzzyLumpkins]

List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists)

And almost none of those are contemporary. Just because the church monopolized education up until the 19th century does not demonstrate much when you say that there were a lot of church scientists.

Aquinas' 'concession' to the scientific community was that you did not have to center research around doctrine; you just could not contradict it.

WOOHOO!

[IWantsACuatro]

So many bitter people in this thread. If you really didn't believe in a higher 'being' (I think of it as state, or presence..or network of intelligent energy that we are a part of), then you would disregard all these threads as nonsense.

Religion, though not perfect and noone is right nor has the right to indoctrinate, has accomplished alot with regard to humanity's struggle to collaborate. It may be argued that it's necessary. With our laid foundations that our ancestors, most of them being religious or adhering to religious doctrine, set for us, we can finally slip away from religion as law and practice "Common Law" in a "civilized" manner. Religion then becomes a personal endeavor.

Most of you bitter people are fighting a personal struggle of the notion of a higher power, and in doing so by downgrading others, you are showing nothing more than your own blaming of some sort of unknown power on your own problems.

Get over it. Religion will always be a part of history and will continue to find its way into the future as a personal ordeal - not one to put down others based on their beliefs in order to quench your struggle to fathom its role in your own life. In doing so, you'll become the very evil you describe it as.

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted."

[IWantsACuatro]

6RjW5-4IiSc


University of Texas alumnus

http://i41.tinypic.com/160xz01.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So many bitter people in this thread. If you really didn't believe in a higher 'being' (I think of it as state, or presence..or network of intelligent energy that we are a part of), then you would disregard all these threads as nonsense.

Religion, though not perfect and noone is right nor has the right to indoctrinate, has accomplished alot with regard to humanity's struggle to collaborate. It may be argued that it's necessary. With our laid foundations that our ancestors, most of them being religious or adhering to religious doctrine, set for us, we can finally slip away from religion as law and practice "Common Law" in a "civilized" manner. Religion then becomes a personal endeavor.

Most of you bitter people are fighting a personal struggle of the notion of a higher power, and in doing so by downgrading others, you are showing nothing more than your own blaming of some sort of unknown power on your own problems.

Get over it. Religion will always be a part of history and will continue to find its way into the future as a personal ordeal - not one to put down others based on their beliefs in order to quench your struggle to fathom its role in your own life. In doing so, you'll become the very evil you describe it as.

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted."

Lol personal endeavor
Lol bitter people
Lol zombies
Lol asexual reproduction
Lol godbeing the only thing between man and anarchy
Lol threats as religion
Lol placing blame on fables

[mouse]

one of the problems associated with creationists is


People like you.


There really is no problem with two different sides having opinions and beliefs.

Maybe you meant to say was...


one of My problems associated with creationists is

that would sound better.





the benefit of exploring the universe outside of Earth....

And what benefit would that be?



I know it's hard for many in this topic to want to actually learn a thing or two, but please do me a favor and don't lump me in the "creationist" talk I have said over 100 times I don't support Creation, and I don't support Man Evolve from a warm liquid pool of DNA but it seems to me many of you can't grasp that thought.

Your limited minds can't comprehend that there are actually people on earth that maybe have a "3rd view" on this subject.

Your all like a bunch of rednecks in a bar arguing about if Coke is better than Pepsi and I walk in with a Sprite.

Your all to busy trying to "win" an argument and show your witty putdowns to each other you really have no clue what the debate is really about or even know why your reading it.

So for the last time get past the Bible Thumper's and Creationist smack and post facts and honest opinions for a change.

raise the mental bar!



What we know already....the rate of Earth's rotation decreases across rather lengthy stretches of time. For example, observations are tabled for some 374 years (from 1623 CE to 1997 CE).
Throughout the many years covered in this table, it is apparent that the length of the solar-day was a fraction of a second faster than 86,400 seconds about 41 percent of the time. It is equally apparent that the length of the solar-day was a fraction of a second slower than 86,400 seconds about 59 percent of the time.



Now with that knowledge we have would it make sense the earth is "4Billion" years old?

remember you would increase the Earth's speed of ration to go back that far which any 7th grade Science book will tell you if something spins fast you have inertia.

How would the Dinosaurs stay on earth at those speeds?


http://www.twncommunications.net/Forum/public_html/yabbfiles/Attachments/Untitled-1_copy.jpg

[Blake]

List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists)

Galileo is on that list.

The church had him under house arrest for the last few years of his life because they claimed some of his scientific theories to be heresy.

.........and Roman Catholics still want to claim him as one of their own.

Sons of bitches. :lol

[Blake]

Get over it. Religion will always be a part of history and will continue to find its way into the future as a personal ordeal - not one to put down others based on their beliefs in order to quench your struggle to fathom its role in your own life. In doing so, you'll become the very evil you describe it as.

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted."

Religion is evil when politicians use it to justify their actions.

And that saying you have in quotes is ridiculous.

[Blake]

Mouse, what is your theory on how humans got here.

[redzero]

:lol mouse is still lifting shit word-for-word from Creationists websites.

[Blake]

:lol mouse is still lifting shit word-for-word from Creationists websites.

But don't call him a creationist! Or an evolutionist!

[baseline bum]

6RjW5-4IiSc

That was an incredible 10 minutes; thanks for sharing.

[RandomGuy]

raise the mental bar!



What we know already....the rate of Earth's rotation decreases across rather lengthy stretches of time. For example, observations are tabled for some 374 years (from 1623 CE to 1997 CE).
Throughout the many years covered in this table, it is apparent that the length of the solar-day was a fraction of a second faster than 86,400 seconds about 41 percent of the time. It is equally apparent that the length of the solar-day was a fraction of a second slower than 86,400 seconds about 59 percent of the time.



Now with that knowledge we have would it make sense the earth is "4Billion" years old?

remember you would increase the Earth's speed of ration to go back that far which any 7th grade Science book will tell you if something spins fast you have inertia.

How would the Dinosaurs stay on earth at those speeds?


http://www.twncommunications.net/Forum/public_html/yabbfiles/Attachments/Untitled-1_copy.jpg

:lmao

That may be the single stupidest thing you have ever posted, and that is saying something.


Claim CE011:
Earth's rotation is slowing down, so it cannot be more than a few million years old.

Debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html


I know you are trolling, but sheesh, can you find something a bit better?

[RandomGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_inertia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation


Using the radians per second, we can ferret out our angular moment.
Radians per second:

The angular speed of Earth's rotation in inertial space is (7.2921150 ± 0.0000001) ×10−5 radians per SI second

Since this is our v, then getting our v^2, gets us a very, very, very small number.
Acceleration needed to overcome gravity: 9.81 m/s^2

So our angular velocity is .0000729*.0000729, or

0.00000000531441 m/s^2

This would need to equal 9.8 to throw us off the planet.

9.8/0.00000000531441

We would have to be spinning 1,844,042,894 times faster to throw us from the surface of the planet, at the equator, where our velocity is at its fastest.

This would mean our "day" would have to be .000005 seconds long.

That is funny, and I learned a bit about how angular momentum works.

------------------------
What scientists actually say about how much it slows down:


1.The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

[mouse]

RandomLie


welcome back. :toast


this tree found fossilized between layers of rock that "Scientist" claim are "Millions" of years old De-bunkes any fossil charts or time lines Science claims it takes for fossilization to take place,
But The Text books don't show any updates


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3199/2761163127_c8287f48b5.jpg

[CuckingFunt]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3199/2761163127_c8287f48b5.jpg

That's very clearly not a tree.

[Thompson]

Neither your or I witnessed what actually happened, but the apostles who did were willing to go to their (often horrific) deaths saying it did. If it didn't happen, they had nothing to gain and everything to lose, and their actions don't make any sense.

[Blake]

Neither your or I witnessed what actually happened, but the apostles who did were willing to go to their (often horrific) deaths saying it did. If it didn't happen, they had nothing to gain and everything to lose, and their actions don't make any sense.

They had glory in heaven to gain.

[Thompson]

They had glory in heaven to gain.

Only if (as first-hand witnesses) they had actually seen him rise from the dead. If they were lying, they would know they were lying and wouldn't choose to die horrifically for the lie.

[redzero]

Why are you assuming that the apostles actually saw the resurrected Jesus?

[IronMaxipad]

6RjW5-4IiSc

KeJoVeKSsyA

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Neither your or I witnessed what actually happened, but the apostles who did were willing to go to their (often horrific) deaths saying it did. If it didn't happen, they had nothing to gain and everything to lose, and their actions don't make any sense.

Oh yeah Paul and John had nothing like power and prestige all over the Mediterranean to gain.

The story of John is that he was boiled but took no harm. I am going to go out on a limb say thats not really what happened. Just like there was no asexual reproduction and hanging out in lit furnaces. All the people in the Coliseum were converted that day. Its true: I read it in the Bible. :rolleyes

Those two made most of the whoppers. Like all you have to do is say your sorry and all the crap that Jesus didn't actually say as written in the Gospels.

[purist]

why is it that those who do not believe feel compelled to convince those who do believe that they are idiots for believing?

Granted, believers are sometimes their own worst enemies for pushing their beliefs on others.

I, for one, choose to believe. Not because science proves it to me, but because of the evidence I have seen firsthand in lives of people i know such as the gifts of faith, patience, sacrifice, unconditional love, and service to others. Can you possess these traits without God. Yes, I suppose so. However, when someone possesses these traits and give credit to their God for them, how can you argue with them. It is their belief, their faith, and ultimately their destiny.

Frankly, for me, beleiving that we came to be out of randomness is more illogical than believing there is a creator. You may think I am being intellectually naive in saying so, but when you consider the expanse of the universe and the wonder of this world, the onlyl conclusion i can come to is that we, the human race, do not have the adequate capacity of intellect to comprehend the fullness of creation. Creationism or evolution? I believe there is room for both under the guiding hand of a supreme being.

One day - at the end of our time on this earth - i suppose we will all know the answer. Until then, i will find comfort and peace in the belief that there is a God and that he loves me and you, regardless of whether we love him back.

[baseline bum]

How will any of us know anything when dead?

[Blake]

why is it that those who do not believe feel compelled to convince those who do believe that they are idiots for believing?

Granted, believers are sometimes their own worst enemies for pushing their beliefs on others.

I, for one, choose to believe. Not because science proves it to me, but because of the evidence I have seen firsthand in lives of people i know such as the gifts of faith, patience, sacrifice, unconditional love, and service to others. Can you possess these traits without God. Yes, I suppose so. However, when someone possesses these traits and give credit to their God for them, how can you argue with them. It is their belief, their faith, and ultimately their destiny.

Frankly, for me, beleiving that we came to be out of randomness is more illogical than believing there is a creator. You may think I am being intellectually naive in saying so, but when you consider the expanse of the universe and the wonder of this world, the onlyl conclusion i can come to is that we, the human race, do not have the adequate capacity of intellect to comprehend the fullness of creation. Creationism or evolution? I believe there is room for both under the guiding hand of a supreme being.

One day - at the end of our time on this earth - i suppose we will all know the answer. Until then, i will find comfort and peace in the belief that there is a God and that he loves me and you, regardless of whether we love him back.

Great. Which religion then is the right one?

[RandomGuy]

That's very clearly not a tree.

It is.

google the URL of the picture, gets you to here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gorbould/2761163127/

Caption:
Fossilized tree at Joggins Fossil Cliffs

Nova Scotia:
http://jogginsfossilcliffs.net/cliffs/

It doesn't prove anything mouse says it does though. He is simply trolling crap he doesn't believe in either.

"spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off." :rollin

[RandomGuy]

why is it that those who do not believe feel compelled to convince those who do believe that they are idiots for believing?

Granted, believers are sometimes their own worst enemies for pushing their beliefs on others.

I, for one, choose to believe. Not because science proves it to me, but because of the evidence I have seen firsthand in lives of people i know such as the gifts of faith, patience, sacrifice, unconditional love, and service to others. Can you possess these traits without God. Yes, I suppose so. However, when someone possesses these traits and give credit to their God for them, how can you argue with them. It is their belief, their faith, and ultimately their destiny.

Frankly, for me, beleiving that we came to be out of randomness is more illogical than believing there is a creator. You may think I am being intellectually naive in saying so, but when you consider the expanse of the universe and the wonder of this world, the onlyl conclusion i can come to is that we, the human race, do not have the adequate capacity of intellect to comprehend the fullness of creation. Creationism or evolution? I believe there is room for both under the guiding hand of a supreme being.

One day - at the end of our time on this earth - i suppose we will all know the answer. Until then, i will find comfort and peace in the belief that there is a God and that he loves me and you, regardless of whether we love him back.

We come out of randomness. We will go back to that.
That the universe exists does not prove any supreme being, merely that a universe exists.

[CuckingFunt]

It is.

google the URL of the picture, gets you to here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gorbould/2761163127/

Caption:
Fossilized tree at Joggins Fossil Cliffs

Nova Scotia:
http://jogginsfossilcliffs.net/cliffs/

It doesn't prove anything mouse says it does though. He is simply trolling crap he doesn't believe in either.

"spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off." :rollin

Strange that it would look so unlike a tree, then. I looked at the largest version of the flickr image and it looks perfectly/evenly fluted. Like a thinner Doric column.

[purist]

We come out of randomness. We will go back to that.
That the universe exists does not prove any supreme being, merely that a universe exists.
meh... it's not worth a debate to me. I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. I'm not here to convince anyone. Just wanted to make the point that in some ways it takes as much faith to believe in randomness as it does to believe in a supreme being. You see evidence, but at some point you take a leap of faith to readch a conclusion.

It's a fascinating topic for discussion, so long as I don't try to proselytize you in the process and you don't try to belittle my intelligence for my belief. That's what usually gets lost in these discussions -- mutual respect.

IN the words of Jesus, Peace be to you. :toast

[FuzzyLumpkins]

meh... it's not worth a debate to me. I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. I'm not here to convince anyone. Just wanted to make the point that in some ways it takes as much faith to believe in randomness as it does to believe in a supreme being. You see evidence, but at some point you take a leap of faith to readch a conclusion.

It's a fascinating topic for discussion, so long as I don't try to proselytize you in the process and you don't try to belittle my intelligence for my belief. That's what usually gets lost in these discussions -- mutual respect.

IN the words of Jesus, Peace be to you. :toast

And I am just saying that if you look at the logical, factual and sensible contradictions and consistency in most common forms of christianity that its as easy as if you do the same things with greek mythology, scientology, rastfarianism hindu zorastrianism and the other hokey religions

Once you accept that there are no flying elephant cities and boatman of the dead it becomes quite easy to understand about ni such thing as human asexual reproduction and god doesn't want you to tithe, Thats just the priest

[mouse]

Strange that it would look so unlike a tree, then. I looked at the largest version of the flickr image and it looks perfectly/evenly fluted. Like a thinner Doric column.

I will admit I was in a hurry and had a few that night and I kinda noticed I may have posted the first image I found on Google too soon but if any of you have ever debated with the people in the MAC forums you know they demand your full attention.

I will find the photo I should have posted but in reality posters in this topic just can't seem to grasp that you don't have to be a creationist to disagree with an Atheist. I know right now that must not make any sense to you but one day it will.

Just because I don't think a huge ball of mass which just came from out of nowhere exploded for no reason and now we are all here?

that doesn't makes sense if your mind has at least 35% usage.
but it still doesn't mean I support the Bible.


It seems to be a trend around here having to remind people over and over that just because someone disagrees with something doesn't mean they support the other team.


You can disagree with Obama and still not be a Republican. You can support PETA and still go home at night and choke your chicken.

It really makes you wonder how shallow is the thinking pool in here.
makes sense how a limited minded person would believe a huge ball of Dirt and rocks would be the reason they are on the Earth its easier to think that way when you just want to take the easy way out and don't want to feel guilty for any actions your responsible for some day.



I on the other hand look at the evidence and thus far the Darwin Clones have yet to show any.


There is a tree that is only 4,484 years old
http://www.peakoil.org.au/dave.kimble/bristlecone/pinus.tree.jpg


Random said the trees are gone even though the earth is "4 Billion" years old the best you can do is 5,000-20,000 year old tree?

forget the word "Billion" how about "Million"

Where is the "Million" year old tree? I forgot they are now fossils.


Then my question is, if they existed at one time where are the fossilized million year old tress at? All the fossilized Trees have less than 200 rings.

where is the Million year old fossilized forest? You have no problem with the 25 Million year old dinosaur bones show me a million year old stump at least.

[mouse]

"spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off." :rollin

That is how silly your theory sounds if the solar system is 12 Billion years old and the earth is slowing down each year then one only has to reverse the time and add speed to the Earth's rotation and go back "4 Billion years" to see how fast the earth spun. It's like a top energy has to someday deplete it's sources.

You can't have a Battery that gets stronger with time. You don't have a cup of hot coffee that get's hotter with time.


You can't have it both ways, either you support Science or you don't.

[RandomGuy]

That is how silly your theory sounds if the solar system is 12 Billion years old and the earth is slowing down each year then one only has to reverse the time and add speed to the Earth's rotation and go back "4 Billion years" to see how fast the earth spun. It's like a top energy has to someday deplete it's sources.

You can't have a Battery that gets stronger with time. You don't have a cup of hot coffee that get's hotter with time.


You can't have it both ways, either you support Science or you don't.

"the earth would be spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off"

"the solar system is 12 billion years old"

"comets came from the big bang"

"tops deplete their energy sources"

:rollin


Ooooh man, I can't take much more... :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Strange that it would look so unlike a tree, then. I looked at the largest version of the flickr image and it looks perfectly/evenly fluted. Like a thinner Doric column.

Hard to tell how large it actually is. It might not even be specifically a tree, but a very, very large fern.

One has only to think of bamboo, or other very regular looking shapes. Unusual, but one has to remember one is looking at a very ancient species.

[RandomGuy]

you don't have to be a creationist to disagree with an Atheist.

:lol mouse trusts creationists to tell him the truth about the universe.

Ok then. Carry on, my wayward son.

[mouse]

"the earth would be spinning so fast the dinosaurs would fall off"

"the solar system is 12 billion years old"

"comets came from the big bang"

"tops deplete their energy sources"

:rollin


Ooooh man, I can't take much more... :lmao


You want the books?

[RandomGuy]

There is a tree that is only 4,484 years old
http://www.peakoil.org.au/dave.kimble/bristlecone/pinus.tree.jpg


Random said the trees are gone even though the earth is "4 Billion" years old the best you can do is 5,000-20,000 year old tree?

forget the word "Billion" how about "Million"

Where is the "Million" year old tree? I forgot they are now fossils.


Then my question is, if they existed at one time where are the fossilized million year old tress at? All the fossilized Trees have less than 200 rings.

where is the Million year old fossilized forest? You have no problem with the 25 Million year old dinosaur bones show me a million year old stump at least.

"no dead trees ever rot before they fossilize"

:rollin

http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/forest2/FOLDER01/Rotting_tree_trunk.jpg

[RandomGuy]

You want the books?

...

[Blake]

You can't have it both ways, either you support Science or you don't.

mouse obviously doesn't support science. He also says he doesn't support creation.

What does mouse support?

[RandomGuy]

mouse obviously doesn't support science. He also says he doesn't support creation.

What does mouse support?

Nothing.

Because it is far more difficult to come up with a working theory than it is to cut and paste. When you actually come up with a theory, then you have to find evidence of that theory, and that takes effort.

[boutons_deux]

Was Jesus gay? Probably

"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."

That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.

Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.

The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today.

Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial. What matters in this context is that there are many gay and lesbian followers of Jesus – ordained and lay – who, despite the church, remarkably and humbly remain its faithful members.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably?newsfeed=true

[Jesus]

I love all children of God but that doesn't make one gay.

[mouse]

Nothing.

Because it is far more difficult to come up with a working theory than it is to cut and paste. When you actually come up with a theory, then you have to find evidence of that theory, and that takes effort.

That is false.
And since I know now how sensitive you are with sarcasm I will try and "Re-post" what I said in a non insulting way.


I said just because someone doesn't agree with Evolution doesn't mean they support creation but the (please don't take this personal) "limited minds" in this topic can't grasp that thought.

And until I see someone with at least some intelligence and can carry a conversation on a level where it progresses I will have to just wait to see if maybe that person who can understand my theory and is not here to bully people into thinking like them, then I shall answer that question at that time.


Which I have done in other topics.

I wish you guys could really read my postings better you wouldn't be asking the same thing over and over.

[mouse]

"no dead trees ever rot before they fossilize"

:rollin

http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/forest2/FOLDER01/Rotting_tree_trunk.jpg


Once again your wrong.

But to help you out here forget the trees where is the Million year old Dirt?
If the Grand Canyon is 2 Million years old why do the dirt samples show 1000s of years and how come the different layers (that Science say is millions of yeas old ) show no Erosion? It didn't rain during the million years that layer was supposedly made?

Where are the fossils in the layers of dirt at the grand canyon?

where are the fossilized animal bones?

They just all happened to avoid the grand canyon for "2 Million" years?

Why would dirt samples match the same date in the middle as they do on the bottom if each layer is millions of years old?

[Blake]

That is false.
And since I know now how sensitive you are with sarcasm I will try and "Re-post" what I said in a non insulting way.


I said just because someone doesn't agree with Evolution doesn't mean they support creation but the (please don't take this personal) "limited minds" in this topic can't grasp that thought.

And until I see someone with at least some intelligence and can carry a conversation on a level where it progresses I will have to just wait to see if maybe that person who can understand my theory and is not here to bully people into thinking like them, then I shall answer that question at that time.


Which I have done in other topics.

I wish you guys could really read my postings better you wouldn't be asking the same thing over and over.

You're too chicken shit to post your theory

[RandomGuy]

That is false.
And since I know now how sensitive you are with sarcasm I will try and "Re-post" what I said in a non insulting way.


I said just because someone doesn't agree with Evolution doesn't mean they support creation but the (please don't take this personal) "limited minds" in this topic can't grasp that thought.

And until I see someone with at least some intelligence and can carry a conversation on a level where it progresses I will have to just wait to see if maybe that person who can understand my theory and is not here to bully people into thinking like them, then I shall answer that question at that time.


Which I have done in other topics.

I wish you guys could really read my postings better you wouldn't be asking the same thing over and over.

Then by all means put forth your theory. Don't keep us in suspense.

If your point is "people believe stupid things like these shitty creationist arguments", then sure I can buy that people believe stupid shit.

Quite frankly, you need to stop blaming others for your inability to make a coherent argument.

Either clearly state what your theory is, or quit posting other people's stupid shit.

Do you believe this stupid shit is true?

[RandomGuy]

Once again your wrong.

But to help you out here forget the trees where is the Million year old Dirt?
If the Grand Canyon is 2 Million years old why do the dirt samples show 1000s of years and how come the different layers (that Science say is millions of yeas old ) show no Erosion? It didn't rain during the million years that layer was supposedly made?

Where are the fossils in the layers of dirt at the grand canyon?

where are the fossilized animal bones?

They just all happened to avoid the grand canyon for "2 Million" years?

Why would dirt samples match the same date in the middle as they do on the bottom if each layer is millions of years old?

I'm not even going to bother with this. You have obviously stopped posting anything serious a while back, and don't understand the logical or factual flaws in what you post.

If you want to learn something here is a link:
http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/fossils.htm

[Proxy]

That is false.
And since I know now how sensitive you are with sarcasm I will try and "Re-post" what I said in a non insulting way.


I said just because someone doesn't agree with Evolution doesn't mean they support creation but the (please don't take this personal) "limited minds" in this topic can't grasp that thought.

And until I see someone with at least some intelligence and can carry a conversation on a level where it progresses I will have to just wait to see if maybe that person who can understand my theory and is not here to bully people into thinking like them, then I shall answer that question at that time.


Which I have done in other topics.

I wish you guys could really read my postings better you wouldn't be asking the same thing over and over.

What is your reasoning for not believing in evolution? Do you understand that the word 'theory' has a much more concrete meaning in scientific terms?

[mouse]

these shitty creationist


stupid

stupid shit.


Do you believe this stupid shit is true?

The intelligent bar has been lowered.

Now I hope you feel comertable on the "no reply" list

[mouse]

What is your reasoning for not believing in evolution?

When did I post I don't believe in Evoulution?

My replies has to do with "lies" posted as "facts"

People can believe in anything they wish just don't call it Science.

You see that is were the little brains in this topic Lose what little focus they might have had on this subject.

In their limited thinking they can't comprehend other possibilities they act like a bunch of rowdy beer drinkers in a sports bar shouting out "are you a Spurs fan or Lakers fan?"

Not even thinking maybe I am at the bar to just have a drink. Why must I be a fan of either team? Who gave the pinheads in this topic the right to
Bully people in picking a side?

My replies have to do with "lies" in the text books and Science books.

Evolution is a "Theory" the same as Nohas Ark they don't belong in the school books as facts.

All the texts books have to say is "sciencetist believe man may have Evolved from a snail and say others believe man was created and all is well let the students decide for themselves on how they may have got here on planet earth.
Until you find chimp that is half man half ape and until someone can prove the earth took 7 days to create it's all "theory" and religion.

Students have a hard enough time trying to learn to spell and add numbers why must Darwin or John 3:16 be in the classroom?

But I doubt you will understand my points




Do you understand that the word 'theory' has a much more concrete meaning in scientific terms?

That's your choice to believe it is I don't have to I prefer facts.

[Blake]

I prefer facts.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[RandomGuy]

The intelligent bar has been lowered.

Now I hope you feel comertable on the "no reply" list

I just want to know if you believe all the stuff you post.

If you are posting things you don't believe, then why bother?

[rascal]

Was Jesus gay? Probably

"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."

That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.

Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.

The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today.

Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial. What matters in this context is that there are many gay and lesbian followers of Jesus – ordained and lay – who, despite the church, remarkably and humbly remain its faithful members.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably?newsfeed=true

Jesus was not gay. Just because a painting made by a speculative gay shows John leaning his head on Jesus doesn't mean a thing.

[Blake]

Jesus was not gay. Just because a painting made by a speculative gay shows John leaning his head on Jesus doesn't mean a thing.

matthew 4:19

And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

[Ginobilly]

matthew 4:19

And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

by saying that he meant that you could persuade people into doing and believing in something. Or inspiring them towards spiritual salvation.

[Ginobilly]

The main point in Christiany imo is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. They are all one in the same in the whole big universal scheme of things. You can't get to the "Father" without the son. And who gives birth to a Father and a son? The Mother=Mary. They are all equal in importance imo in true christany! In those times the "Father" ruled above all else. The father could destroy the son without question or cause. Jesus taught us to respect all meek things. And what was meek and vunerable in ancient times?? Children/babies. Jesus flipped the philosophy and way of thinking of the whole world(the impact is everlasting) and thats why he died to correct all the sin that was being caused in the world at that time. We still feel his impact today whether we like it or not. For the better or for the worse for some, but we do have a choice. in other words; we are a type of seed.

[Blake]

by saying that he meant that you could persuade people into doing and believing in something. Or inspiring them towards spiritual salvation.

Or he was headed to a night club for men only.

[Blake]

The main point in Christiany imo is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. They are all one in the same in the whole big universal scheme of things. You can't get to the "Father" without the son. And who gives birth to a Father and a son? The Mother=Mary. They are all equal in importance imo in true christany! In those times the "Father" ruled above all else. The father could destroy the son without question or cause. Jesus taught us to respect all meek things. And what was meek and vunerable in ancient times?? Children/babies. Jesus flipped the philosophy and way of thinking of the whole world(the impact is everlasting) and thats why he died to correct all the sin that was being caused in the world at that time. We still feel his impact today whether we like it or not. For the better or for the worse for some, but we do have a choice. in other words; we are a type of seed.

The Father is a sick bastard in the Old Testament.

Why would I want anything to do with him?

[mouse]

I just want to know if you believe all the stuff you post.



lets see here.....

you post:
the earth is 4 billion years old and after two billion years it cooled down enough for a man to evolved from a snail in warm pool of liquid.

This same man who evolved from a snail later landed on the moon and created the Ipad.

I post:
there has to be another explanation and maybe some outside involvement.


which sounds reasonable?

you and I are walking on the beach near a mental institution where we both just escaped.

we both see an old rusty bike in the sand, I say that looks like it had someone design that object you say it evolved from a starfish.

which one of us will they try and lock up first?








If you are posting things you don't believe, then why bother?

To educate people. You don't need to believe cakes and pies are good for you to write a cook book.

[Blake]

To educate people.

Rofl

[Happy Devil]

One of the best threads evah!!

[RandomGuy]

lets see here.....

you post:
the earth is 4 billion years old and after two billion years it cooled down enough for a man to evolved from a snail in warm pool of liquid.

This same man who evolved from a snail later landed on the moon and created the Ipad.

I post:
there has to be another explanation and maybe some outside involvement.

which sounds reasonable?

you and I are walking on the beach near a mental institution where we both just escaped.

we both see an old rusty bike in the sand, I say that looks like it had someone design that object you say it evolved from a starfish.

which one of us will they try and lock up first?

To educate people. You don't need to believe cakes and pies are good for you to write a cook book.

Why does there have to be "another explanation"?

How do you know something to be true?

[mouse]

Why does there have to be "another explanation"?

How do you know something to be true?

I had a feeling your mind would reach it's capacity to learn.

I just didn't think it would be so soon.

[RandomGuy]

I had a feeling your mind would reach it's capacity to learn.

I just didn't think it would be so soon.

Those were fair and honest questions.

If you like, handle them one at a time.

How do you know something to be true?

What process do yo use to figure things out for yourself?

If you want to buy a car from an ad in the paper that says "great car, it runs beautifully", do you simply wait for someone to drop it off, hand the guy a check, and let him go on his way?

[Blake]

I had a feeling your mind would reach it's capacity to learn.

I just didn't think it would be so soon.

why are you so mean?

[Ginobilly]

It's natural to give up on religion/faith when the going gets tough in life. We may die of some unjustly of some disease, or our son or daughter might die before they reach old age. But that's not a reason to give up on faith. Or science for that matter. ustedes siganle chingando en la vida, no matter what! Keep on working, pay your child support, honor your mother and father, behave how you would like your sons and daughters/brothers and sisters to be treated, and wait for that day that you die.

[Blake]

It's natural to give up on religion/faith when the going gets tough in life. We may die of some unjustly of some disease, or our son or daughter might die before they reach old age. But that's not a reason to give up on faith.

Pretty good reasons to give up on faith, imo.