The Peaceful Peanut Farmhouse of Carter Bryant

[CorrectCrusader]

GSG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Is1iKl-ZE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIRQUVb9Y0o

[scott]

Solid work, OP

[TrainOfThought5]

Finally a well named Player Thread.

[cutewizard]

Mr. Fascination!

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp_NdVfFNXk

[vy65]

1938052062333304936

[Rosewood]

Spurs officially have a real NBA Roster now. Huge draft for us, two more core pieces added. Youth movement might all be here now.

Thanks DJM trade.

[cutewizard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK7mprawgns

[cutewizard]

The bench can now shoot

Barnes
Champagne
Mamu
Minix
Carter Bryant

[cutewizard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9BTJrMPZkk

[cutewizard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcRWjIS7WOU

[cutewizard]

Mamu has competition for my favorite Spurs player now, lol

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K-U-fAWYV0

[quentin_compson]

Jimmy Carter Bryant ...
Clever thread title, OP!

[Em-City]

Somebody explain this thread title to me

[Splits]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9BTJrMPZkk

Fuck. Kirbystan

[LeBowen]

Fuck. Kirbystan

Give him #8, tbh.
Or it's getting retired? Noone wore it since Mills left.

[Splits]

Give him #8, tbh.
Or it's getting retired? Noone wore it since Mills left.

trade him tbh. anyone who admires a chucker who suicided/murdered his daughter by flying his chopper to a girls basketball game when the entire LAPD was grounded due to weather has no place on this team.

[RC_Drunkford]

trade him tbh. anyone who admires a chucker who suicided/murdered his daughter by flying his chopper to a girls basketball game when the entire LAPD was grounded due to weather has no place on this team.

how stupid can you be? Dude literally got assassinated by big pharma companies cause he filed a lawsuit against them

[Ice009]

how stupid can you be? Dude literally got assassinated by big pharma companies cause he filed a lawsuit against them

What's this about? Who had a lawsuit against who?

[mystargtr34]

What's this about? Who had a lawsuit against who?

I think Kobe filed a lawsuit against a big pharma company for some trademark or someshit only a short time before he was smeared across that mountain side.

Would not surprise me one bit if foul play was involved.

[Ice009]

I think Kobe filed a lawsuit against a big pharma company for some trademark or someshit only a short time before he was smeared across that mountain side.

Would not surprise me one bit if foul play was involved.

Oh right. I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining. That makes it sound very suspicious indeed. That puts a bit of doubt into it being a straight accident. When you have people like Puff that went against the alcohol industry trying to sue, and then next thing you know, he got exposed for all the other shit he was going.
A lot of the time these aren't coincidences IMO.

[CorrectCrusader]

Somebody explain this thread title to me


Jimmy Carter Bryant ...
Clever thread title, OP!

[CGD]

Somebody explain this thread title to me

Research Jimmy Carter

[cutewizard]

No one is wearing 19


its a good number

[Ice009]

No one is wearing 19


its a good number

That's a nice option IMO.

I would have said 54 to add the numbers together, but Sandro already has that number (I think CB also mentioned he was thinking of that). 45 could be another option if he wants to try and keep some significance to the number 9.

I'm glad that number 2 is Dylan's. Really happy if the Spurs are letting him take that number.

[John B]

6’8 with shoes, 8’10 standing reach, 39’ vertical. This kid loves to dunk the ball like Stephon. And with his hard-nosed defense, it will be fun. I hope he hasn’t stopped growing, and maybe fit more at the PF because that would be wild.

[Guru of Nothing]

He will slay McClung this year and I will be here for it.

[Ice009]

He will slay McClung this year and I will be here for it.

Who will slay McClung? Bryant?

[Bartleby]

This makes me even more happy that the Spurs couldn't draft Salaün at 8 last year.

[RC_Drunkford]

this guy might be the 3rd best defender on our entire roster right now


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RelgpFquMw

[spurraider21]

how stupid can you be? Dude literally got assassinated by big pharma companies cause he filed a lawsuit against them
is your source that same podcast bro?

[spurraider21]

Oh right. I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining. That makes it sound very suspicious indeed. That puts a bit of doubt into it being a straight accident. When you have people like Puff that went against the alcohol industry trying to sue, and then next thing you know, he got exposed for all the other shit he was going.
A lot of the time these aren't coincidences IMO.
why does that make it suspicious?

do you think the pharma company sent a kamikaze pilot?

[Mr. Body]

this guy might be the 3rd best defender on our entire roster right now


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RelgpFquMw

Blowing up those DHOs at :28 and right after... <3

[LeBowen]

Blowing up those DHOs at :28 and right after... <3

Hoop intellect guy, probably my favorite YT draft channel, says that he's got issues with foul rate and biting on pump fakes too easily. I guess that will come with experience.
He was probably too eager to prove himself considering the low minutes and fouled a lot because of it.

[SpursBills]

Hoping for athletic Shane battier in a couple years, hoping he can get there

[Mr. Body]

Hoop intellect guy, probably my favorite YT draft channel, says that he's got issues with foul rate and biting on pump fakes too easily. I guess that will come with experience.
He was probably too eager to prove himself considering the low minutes and fouled a lot because of it.

He gets out of position a lot, seen in those clips. He's quick and savvy enough to recover, and the chase-down blocks look phenomenal, but he's having to chase down because he's overplaying things. That stuff can get worked out -- that he's so focused on defense and loves it and has those capabilities are great.

[Dejounte]

Hoop intellect guy, probably my favorite YT draft channel, says that he's got issues with foul rate and biting on pump fakes too easily. I guess that will come with experience.
He was probably too eager to prove himself considering the low minutes and fouled a lot because of it.

I also read that he gets blown by by more explosive players. People need to lower their expectations a little bit tbh

[Russo21]

trade him tbh. anyone who admires a chucker who suicided/murdered his daughter by flying his chopper to a girls basketball game when the entire LAPD was grounded due to weather has no place on this team.

Yeppp. Kobe was always an overrated chucker. Crazy how the rapist who was a so called family man killed his daughter by flying his chopper in terrible weather even when the LAPD were grounded. Kobe and his daughter got what they deserved. There's come closet gay Kobe Laker fans on this site lately. Him and his daughter are where they needed to be

[ace3g]

I like this


He is also one of only a few freshman players from last season to record at least 100 rebounds, 30 assists, 30 blocks, and 30 steals. One other is the top pick in the draft, Cooper Flagg.

[Mr. Body]

I also read that he gets blown by by more explosive players. People need to lower their expectations a little bit tbh

We'll see if he's able to learn those covers or if he's more of a good on-ball guy and strong off-ball defender. Castle I feel is a very good on-ball defender, or projects to be, because he doesn't waste movements and is more calculated. Another reason why I don't like moving off Sochan yet, because he's also pretty strong on-ball. Ideally they all start playing well together.

Carter mentioned how having Wemby would allow him to be more aggressive, so he probably knows that he's jumpy and there are consequences to overplaying to work out.

[ace3g]

https://x.com/EtienneCatalan/status/1938274895538057667

[Mr. Body]

https://x.com/EtienneCatalan/status/1938274895538057667

Jordan McLaughlin we have bad news for you.

[Ice009]

why does that make it suspicious?

do you think the pharma company sent a kamikaze pilot?

I probably jumped the gun on this one as I never really looked into it before now. There's a lot of mysterious deaths that seem to happen, but looking into this one now for the first time, this isn't one of them.


Yeppp. Kobe was always an overrated chucker. Crazy how the rapist who was a so called family man killed his daughter by flying his chopper in terrible weather even when the LAPD were grounded. Kobe and his daughter got what they deserved. There's come closet gay Kobe Laker fans on this site lately. Him and his daughter are where they needed to be

I assume Kobe made a joint decision along with the pilot to fly, but from what I've just read now having taken a look at it, it seems the pilot made the decision (not sure how much input Kobe had). If that is the case, why the F would you say Kobe's daughter deserves it?

[picnroll]

Wemby, Sochan, Castle, and Bryant, Sweeney must be having a bad case of priapism.

[Splits]

I probably jumped the gun on this one as I never really looked into it before now. There's a lot of mysterious deaths that seem to happen, but looking into this one now for the first time, this isn't one of them.



I assume Kobe made a joint decision along with the pilot to fly, but from what I've just read now having taken a look at it, it seems the pilot made the decision (not sure how much input Kobe had). If that is the case, why the F would you say Kobe's daughter deserves it?

Gianna didn't deserve having a shit father who murdered her. It wasn't her fault that he decided to force his chopper pilot to fly in weather that grounded the entire LAPD and CHP. He made that decision. He killed his 14 yo daughter trying to take her to a basketball game. Do you think his chopter pilot was like, "no Kirby we ain't doin this". No, he told him to fly because he pays the big bucks and he flew her into the side of a mountain when every other chopper in the region was grounded. He murdered her because of his ego.

[Leetonidas]

Yeppp. Kobe was always an overrated chucker. Crazy how the rapist who was a so called family man killed his daughter by flying his chopper in terrible weather even when the LAPD were grounded. Kobe and his daughter got what they deserved. There's come closet gay Kobe Laker fans on this site lately. Him and his daughter are where they needed to be

His daughter deserved it? Man shut the fuck up with this edgelord nonsense

[Ice009]

Again, I only just read a little bit about earlier for the first time due to the topic being brought up, but if it was for basketball (not sure if it was for a game for Gianna, or if they were just going to watch one), then I can see Kobe's emotions getting into it. He probably wanted to get her there because it's a. Basketball, and b. it's both what he and Gianna loved to do.
If he was simply trying to get to a business meeting or something like that, then he's more at fault there, but I'd say emotions got into a bit and he just wanted to get her to a basketball game. Maybe he was just trying to make his daughter happy trying to get her there? Still at fault for flying when the LAPD and California HP were grounded.

[CorrectCrusader]

How did this thread turn into weird off topic kobe shit less than 3 pages in

[Ice009]

How did this thread turn into weird off topic kobe shit less than 3 pages in

Splits bought up Devin being a fan of a chucker (Kobe). A diss on Devin I guess. Not sure why his daughter and their accident was brought into it, though. I can't answer that one.

[dbestpro]

Hope he likes Austin unless a trade or two happens.

[Davidicus]

The ultimate combo

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/JimmyCarterPortrait2.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Kobe_Bryant_Dec_2014.jpg/500px-Kobe_Bryant_Dec_2014.jpg

[thiste]

Welcome to the Spurs, Vince Kobe!

[CorrectCrusader]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIRQUVb9Y0o

[xellos88330]

Love the kids energy! That will always translate.

[ace3g]

last half of slides are him.

DLa92GNvgpp

[ace3g]

DLc9xPuufRy

[CGD]

DLc9xPuufRy

Nice, didnt realize his mom was a boricua

[Mr. Body]

I love how SpursTalk is all like, these rookies are so wholesome, it's awesome. And also, Friendship Crew are so wholesome, fuck them.

[PopTheGOAT]

I love how SpursTalk is all like, these rookies are so wholesome, it's awesome. And also, Friendship Crew are so wholesome, fuck them.

https://youtu.be/NmRB1_A-gpI?si=gADBC7CLL7NqriyE

[itzsoweezee]

I love how SpursTalk is all like, these rookies are so wholesome, it's awesome. And also, Friendship Crew are so wholesome, fuck them.

I definitely have a soft spot for keldon. And I can’t imagine the spurs ever moving him except to a truly good situation

[cutewizard]

Carter Bryant will be a great community guy

[vy65]

1940108042801922270

Jumper looks wet

[ChumpDumper]

A little low-n-slow but I'm not gonna complain too much about a 19 year old with some accuracy.

[benefactor]

A little low-n-slow but I'm not gonna complain too much about a 19 year old with some accuracy.
Yeah he will need to work on getting it off a little quicker but with all the play making the Spurs now have the hope is he will be plenty open enough to have time to get it off and knock it down.

[cutewizard]

https://youtu.be/hY0UfhXbbKU?si=CwaKVlYkox2gCBOL

[CGD]

Clearly this thread name was a bust? Should we try again?

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

Busted like his shot

[spurraider21]

Futuristic Power Armor of Carter Bryant

[tonight...you]

The half man, half amazing kidney bean sprout head of Carter Bryant?

[Extra Stout]

The Partially-Finished 3-D Printed House Still Awaiting Permits of Carter Bryant

[cutewizard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWKlNiaF3oQ

[spurraider21]

he's out there with Guard Whisperer guy too. a lot of NBA guys in this scrim. Klay, Mobley, Dinwiddie, Eason. i saw several 3's from CB, a couple of blocks, a few nice drives, and one bad one where he got stuck in the Castle hesi position and had to burp up a bad shot


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caG2xMGmVnE

[spurraider21]

same game different view i think


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xNfO5gH0M0

[spurraider21]

mobley is clearly emphasizing his perimeter face up game. eason looked pretty incredible with his ballhandling. and dinwiddie gonna dinwiddie, still a hell of an iso player

[ace3g]

DMySLFchgQS

[Joseph Kony]

DMySLFchgQS
that was filthy :wow

[itzsoweezee]

DMySLFchgQS

Gotdamn!

[BatManu20]

Yea that was nasty

1951024613447586279

[BatManu20]

Another angle + his other highlights

1951040163880263891

[LakerHater]

https://images4.imagebam.com/e1/ec/38/ME14O0GX_o.gif]

[KobesAchilles]

Start him Mitch. He isn’t ready now but will be by January. Imagine the defense in the future with Bryant, Sochan, Wemby, Harper , and Castle

[spurraider21]

Start him Mitch. He isn’t ready now but will be by January. Imagine the defense in the future with Bryant, Sochan, Wemby, Harper , and Castle
a lot of players with theoretical defensive upside, but emphasis on theoretical. harper has good size but its not like he was a defensive standout at rutgers. if he didnt have that one big block in summer league would people even be talking about his defense?


https://i.gyazo.com/add570a4676ef64b3088244fcd4c3957.png


the above is kind of jarring. though to be fair, the late dips there on Sochan/Castle could potentially be attributable to spending the latter part of last season without wemby

[spurraider21]

more of the footage from today's scrimmage. you can keep hearing the coach (simplis) talking about how well CB is playing in the background


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJC_mOCMt2c

[scott]

mobley is clearly emphasizing his perimeter face up game. eason looked pretty incredible with his ballhandling. and dinwiddie gonna dinwiddie, still a hell of an iso player

Leaving Jalen Williams aside, I really think that Eason is the toolsy, kind of weird, PF we should have drafted in 2022.

[exstatic]

https://images4.imagebam.com/e1/ec/38/ME14O0GX_o.gif]

That was fucking nasty.

[exstatic]

Leaving Jalen Williams aside, I really think that Eason is the toolsy, kind of weird, PF we should have drafted in 2022.

He’s almost as old as Devin, has three years of experience, not five, and has played a combined 79 games over the last two seasons. I also see him being somewhat marginalized by KD.

[scott]

He’s almost as old as Devin, has three years of experience, not five, and has played a combined 79 games over the last two seasons. I also see him being somewhat marginalized by KD.

He's also better at basketball than the guy we picked. That's all that actually matters.

[exstatic]

He's also better at basketball than the guy we picked. That's all that actually matters.

Don’t see how you figure that, unless it’s just haterade. At worst, it’s a push.

https://stathead.com/basketball/versus-finder.cgi?player_id2=vassede01&player_id1=easonta01&request=1&utm_campaign=2023_01_wdgt_player_comparison&utm_source=bbr&utm_id=easonta01&utm_medium=sr_xsite

[scott]

Don’t see how you figure that, unless it’s just haterade. At worst, it’s a push.

https://stathead.com/basketball/versus-finder.cgi?player_id2=vassede01&player_id1=easonta01&request=1&utm_campaign=2023_01_wdgt_player_comparison&utm_source=bbr&utm_id=easonta01&utm_medium=sr_xsite

Devin Vassell is not the toolsy, kind of weird, PF we drafted instead of Tari Eason.

[sfernald]

That was fucking nasty.

Got to admit that was sort of prime blake griffin-esque.

[TekXX]

Do it in the NBA Primo 2.0

[ginobilized]

Carter Bryant has such a motor. That's pretty unteachable. He plays incredibly hard. It's starting to look like we might've gotten lucky 2x in this draft.
CB's potential is compelling. It could take him a couple of years to settle down, but, once that happens, look out!

Now all we need is a 6'9" -10" athletic, high IQ PF. Maybe Boozer can somehow end up a Spur?

[TD 21]

Carter Bryant has such a motor. That's pretty unteachable. He plays incredibly hard. It's starting to look like we might've gotten lucky 2x in this draft.
CB's potential is compelling. It could take him a couple of years to settle down, but, once that happens, look out!

Now all we need is a 6'9" -10" athletic, high IQ PF. Maybe Boozer can somehow end up a Spur?

Interesting. Conventional wisdom is that Harper will only be traded for minimally an All-NBA caliber player, in their prime, who projects as a hand in glove fit. It's probably correct.

But they could also pursue something like this. Of course, myriad things would have to align, from Fox being a good fit to Castle making a leap offensively to Harper maintaining current value and team x not having and prioritizing offensive "engine" over Boozer.

[John B]

https://images4.imagebam.com/e1/ec/38/ME14O0GX_o.gif]

Going for AS Slam Dunk? Unless somebody’s signing McClung-clung

[cutewizard]

Hope Evan plays for us someday

He is like a modern day Bill Russell

[cutewizard]

https://youtu.be/grhksu4B6-Q?si=IqWrSpdr8pZhrA8B

[heyheymymy]

CB looks promising

[exstatic]

Going for AS Slam Dunk? Unless somebody’s signing McClung-clung

McClung is the NBA’s version of Groundhog Day. He comes out in February, wins an obviously rigged dunk contest, and then disappears until the following February.

[BackHome]

I an Ok giving Bryant a shot and see what happens if he does well keep his minutes steady and if not bring him down to G League. The biggest issue will be his shooting confidence if he can hit the 3 ball early that will really help with his confidence and development.

[CGD]

Carter Bryant has such a motor. That's pretty unteachable. He plays incredibly hard. It's starting to look like we might've gotten lucky 2x in this draft.
CB's potential is compelling. It could take him a couple of years to settle down, but, once that happens, look out!

Now all we need is a 6'9" -10" athletic, high IQ PF. Maybe Boozer can somehow end up a Spur?

Hopefully our version for the Chet/J-Dub draft OKC had.

[tim_duncan_fan]

The way he moves looks really good, looks like a real NBA body, and it seems like he will be a hell of a ball handler in a couple years. He's a very interesting prospect. Should be fun to watch.

[Ice009]

I'm really liking the glimpses we're seeing so far. More so, I love his attitude and love/passion for the game. I hope he reaches the level he wants to get to. Now that he's able to focus on basketball fulltime, he really could start improving at a faster rate.
I wonder if he's worked with Olin/TGW before or if he's only just started?

I watched a little bit of that video and man, Klay is killing it. The dude is looking like he's had a great summer. Maybe Klay could still have a bit left in the tank? Maybe he's now feeling better from all those injuries and has a second wind/run left in him?

[exstatic]

I'm really liking the glimpses we're seeing so far. More so, I love his attitude and love/passion for the game. I hope he reaches the level he wants to get to. Now that he's able to focus on basketball fulltime, he really could start improving at a faster rate.
I wonder if he's worked with Olin/TGW before or if he's only just started?

I watched a little bit of that video and man, Klay is killing it. The dude is looking like he's had a great summer. Maybe Klay could still have a bit left in the tank? Maybe he's now feeling better from all those injuries and has a second wind/run left in him?

Klay is playing with a broken down older body due to multiple major injuries. Can’t fix that.

[exstatic]

HkU87oYwSMs

Just the CB isos.

[jermaine]

He definitely modeled his game after Kawhi

[ginobilized]

He definitely modeled his game after Kawhi

What are you seeing that resembles Kawhi?

[The Truth #6]

That video looked like near All Star Game level defense. I wouldn't draw any big conclusions other than that was a nasty dunk.

[dn0774]

Yea good to see the athleticism on display.

[mystargtr34]

He reminds me a bit of Paul George the way he shoots the dribble pull ups

[cutewizard]

May the potential be developed

[Snaq O'Meal]

Like Vince Carter and Kobe Bryant had a baby. Half mamba, half amazing.

[ginobilized]

Carter Bryant definitely has the body, athleticism and motor to be a stellar modern-day NBA wing. It won't happen overnight, but, the he's the right prototype.
Amen Thompson-lite with a jumper is what I'm seeing at this early stage. He's got such a positive, blue-collar attitude, too. Those dudes usually find a way, even with much less talent.

[Obstructed_View]

Carter Bryant definitely has the body, athleticism and motor to be a stellar modern-day NBA wing. It won't happen overnight, but, the he's the right prototype.
Amen Thompson-lite with a jumper is what I'm seeing at this early stage. He's got such a positive, blue-collar attitude, too. Those dudes usually find a way, even with much less talent.

What's cool to me is that Bowen and LDN had to face some failure before working to transform to 3 and D players, while CB is starting off working toward it. I think I probably said exactly this at least a couple of times.

[exstatic]

Carter Bryant definitely has the body, athleticism and motor to be a stellar modern-day NBA wing. It won't happen overnight, but, the he's the right prototype.
Amen Thompson-lite with a jumper is what I'm seeing at this early stage. He's got such a positive, blue-collar attitude, too. Those dudes usually find a way, even with much less talent.

Nobody is the athlete that Amen is, but CB’s offensive game will be much better. Even though Amen is a creator, his janky jumper will always limit passing angles as they sag off him.

[cutewizard]

https://youtu.be/k-MOGHu4NqA?si=Prhutuofci1_kKu7

[ace3g]

https://x.com/spurs/status/1952806813226741992

[tim_duncan_fan]

https://youtu.be/k-MOGHu4NqA?si=Prhutuofci1_kKu7

One thing for sure, kid is a great speaker. Will obviously be the captain/leader of some team, whether he becomes a 1st option or not.

[Russ]

One thing for sure, kid is a great speaker. Will obviously be the captain/leader of some team, whether he becomes a 1st option or not.

Yeah, that's critical.

Of the four-person core, Wemby, Castle, Harper and Bryant, he's the one that looks like a guaranteed leader.

[The Truth #6]

His process definitely increases his chance for success, I'll give him that. If can just shoot open 3s well, I'd love for him to get some Devin minutes and then move Devin to a team that has room for his preferred play style.

[cutewizard]

Articulate young man

[Ice009]

https://x.com/spurs/status/1952806813226741992

I'm very impressed. Good guy and shows tons of dedication.

[sfernald]

https://i.postimg.cc/cJHvzFsF/file-00000000258061f7bd6fc26af5d98654.png

[Splits]

lost me at read my bible, wtf

[Gagnrath]

lost me at read my bible, wtf


Sounds like he's on the David Robinson road to self awareness.

Some guys get programed in life to take their inspiration from religion.

[exstatic]

lost me at read my bible, wtf

I’d be much more worried if he had a nosy, meddling uncle in the family tree.

[spurraider21]

lost me at read my bible, wtf
probably something wholesome like Genesis 19:30 when two daughters take turns getting their dad drunk and fucking him and getting pregnant

[Splits]

probably something wholesome like Genesis 19:30 when two daughters take turns getting their dad drunk and fucking him and getting pregnant


fuck, had no idea the bible was so hawt

[exstatic]

fuck, had no idea the bible was so hawt

:rollin anti-book banners have used that exact scenario, gotten a bunch of religiots in a lather, then said it was the Bible.

[benefactor]

probably something wholesome like Genesis 19:30 when two daughters take turns getting their dad drunk and fucking him and getting pregnant
That or Ezekiel 23:20 where we randomly start talking about big ole donkey dicks that fire loads as big as a horses

[spurraider21]

That or Ezekiel 23:20 where we randomly start talking about big ole donkey dicks that fire loads as big as a horses
Praise be, praise be.

[rjv]

the old testament is wack.

[Mr. Body]

Or the townspeople who want to rape an angel so the guy gives them his daughters instead.

[LeBowen]

Old Testament: I want some nasty.
New Testament: That's not who we are.

[benefactor]

Old Testament: I want some nasty.
New Testament: That's not who we are.
:lol...perfect

[spurraider21]

Old Testament: I want some nasty.
New Testament: That's not who we are.
ah yes the much nicer story of creating your son for the sole purpose of being brutally murdered despite being innocent

[vy65]

Fun fact: it's been said about me that I have genitals like those of donkeys and emissions like that of horses.

In all seriousness, is there better smut than the OT?

[ismael-robert]

He wasn't innocent cause your, my and your fellow posters' sins were heaped upon Him. Also in order for a sacrifice to be suitable it had to be a flawless, spotless lamb...the only way He could've qualified was for Him too to be spotless

[spurraider21]

:lol

im pretty sure the big guy makes the rules himself.

"for a sacrifice to be suitable it had to be".... he's the one who decided a sacrifice was necessary. :lol blood sacrifices

"only way he could have qualified"... the big guy sets the rules. he decides what qualified.

and his best answer was to create a son to sacrifice himself to himself to make himself happy. a ritual sacrifice to himself which itself had nothing to do with human morality.

its a laughably convoluted system when he could have chosen anything

[Mr. Body]

God creates the world, including how the world works in every conceivable way.

The world sucks, so he kills everyone in it except for Noah and his fam.

Then the world continues to suck. Instead of changing the rules or looking deep within and seeing where he went wrong, God sends a part of himself, who is not quite himself, to be killed in order to redeem all the failed people he created to entertain himself.

But this still doesn't fix anything so all the people are sitting around for thumbs up their butts for thousands of years for the son, who is God but also not God, to come again to do it again or whatever.

[Gandalf]

Just because something is recounted in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s ‘endorsing’ it. Oftentimes it’s to show how corrupt humanity tends to be; even the man after God’s own heart fell. That’s why we need someone perfect to pay the debt we can’t. John 3:16.

Most of you will ignore this, but in addition to the Bible itself, Charles Ryrie’s annotated Bible is helpful. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (a brilliant atheist who became one of the greatest modern Christian theologians), Evidence That Demands a Verdict (includes great sections on fulfilled prophecy, history, and logic), The Case for Christ, and By This Name (explains how the Old Testament and New Testament are tied together) are also good.

[ismael-robert]

And thats where humanity fails...we keep thinking we know better or could've done it better basically making ourselves our own lower case g gods. It's exactly what lead to Satan's fall. The picture here is the immense, incomprehensible holiness and perfection of God...and on the opposite man's flawed Morality. His holiness is often described as being holy, holy, holy to both emphasize the magnitude n also points to His tri-unity. You're right He set the rules n the rule He set was that the penalty for sin is death. So because of our sin we deserve death. But He demonstrated His love for us by coming down Himself and sacrificing Himself for us...you...while we/you were still sinning/ sinners. Its a free gift, nothing convoluted to it. You just have to accept the gift with your whole heart.
The second problem, Satan's as well is pride. We can't humble ourselves enough to say this life isn't mine. I have no problem kneeling down, calling myself a slave and uh oh watch out gonna emasculate myself, His bride (the church is His bride n WE are the church, its not a building its an organism; a body).
Sure He could've created robots n programmed them to love Him but would you even want that? You want to be chosen, and you have...you have been adopted. Its a story of redemption.

[picnroll]

Couple of billion years ago the building blocks for DNA and amino acids fell into the earth’s oceans and in that warm broth man was created. Then a couple of thousand years ago man created the fairy tales of Jesus and Mohammed and began killing each other in God’s name. Most recently the spiritual leader, rapist, pedophile and con man Trump has picked up the calling to carry on God’s work. Not that complicateded.

[Mr. Body]

Just because something is recounted in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s ‘endorsing’ it. Oftentimes it’s to show how corrupt humanity tends to be; even the man after God’s own heart fell. That’s why we need someone perfect to pay the debt we can’t. John 3:16.

Most of you will ignore this, but in addition to the Bible itself, Charles Ryrie’s annotated Bible is helpful. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (a brilliant atheist who became one of the greatest modern Christian theologians), Evidence That Demands a Verdict (includes great sections on fulfilled prophecy, history, and logic), The Case for Christ, and By This Name (explains how the Old Testament and New Testament are tied together) are also good.

Almost all the absurdly violent shit in the Bible is endorsed by the Bible. David killing men to sleep with their wives. There's even a scene where some kids poke fun at a man for being bald so God sends bears to murder the kids. Noah's daughters sleeping with him is endorsed by the Bible. The part I mentioned where Lot gives his daughters for townspeople to rape is endorsed in the Bible. God kills incredible amounts of innocent people in the Bible. There's really no getting around the fact that it's an insane book that should be read as anthropology and history and not taken seriously.

Now, we can take it that the New Testament was a refutation of the insane Old Testament, something an early figure like Marcion believed (because it is impossible to reconcile the old vengeful God and Jesus), but Christ kind of contradicts this at times, doesn't at others. And Marcion was rendered heretical before long.

But modern American Christians only believe in the Old Testament God of insanity, murder, hypocrisy, and so on, because it supports their worldviews and actions, rather than what Christ preached.

tl;dr the Bible is a mess of stories lashed together by fragile humans and then interpreted by elites in order to enforce their own awful behavior. But to say the Bible doesn't endorse murder, rape, slavery, abuse, and so on, is just false. It does.

[spurraider21]

Just because something is recounted in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s ‘endorsing’ it. Oftentimes it’s to show how corrupt humanity tends to be; even the man after God’s own heart fell. That’s why we need someone perfect to pay the debt we can’t. John 3:16.

Most of you will ignore this, but in addition to the Bible itself, Charles Ryrie’s annotated Bible is helpful. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (a brilliant atheist who became one of the greatest modern Christian theologians), Evidence That Demands a Verdict (includes great sections on fulfilled prophecy, history, and logic), The Case for Christ, and By This Name (explains how the Old Testament and New Testament are tied together) are also good.
this is true

but the bible endorses slavery. in fact spells out rules for the way you are supposed to treat your slaves! with different rules for different folks. hebrew slaves have nicer rules. foreign slaves you can treat worse

i mean the big guy himself had a pretty nasty rule if you learned that some poeple from a nearby town said "hey maybe lets check out a different god". to be precise:

If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt


this is not just something recounted, this is an instruction

[rjv]

i'm desperately trying to find a video related to carter bryant that i can post so i can be spared another banal take on whether someone believes in god or not. i'd take cutewizard posting 10 videos over having to read any more half-ass apologetics.

[mikec]

lol. Carter Bryant stepping on some sensitive toes here! Gonna be a rocky few years.

[cutewizard]

Old Testament: I want some nasty.
New Testament: That's not who we are.

...................

Hahaha

[SayNoToDrugsTBH]

Old Testament: I want some nasty.
New Testament: That's not who we are.

Hahahahahaha

[KobesAchilles]

If I’m the Spurs there are three ways we can make the playoffs. If all 3 happen then we win the damn title.
a) Vassell becomes a true 3&D player. By limiting his offensive output Vassell focuses solely on the defensive end. He pays attention to his man when he is off ball, makes the right switches, fights over screens, and I just a pest for his man on the defensive end. And on offense he shoots open 3 balls and cuts to the basket. That’s it. No more dribble iso shots. No more midrange and definitely no more contested jumpers in the teeth of the defense.

B) Sochan learns how to play offense and he become our 3&D guy. His defense is already good. It can improve but he’s good at it. But on offense he is more than just a guy who has his defender cheat off him the whole game. He shoots the 3ball at a high volume AND a league average percentage. The last year literally had people not even bother to run out and contest him so it should be possible. He also needs to stop being scared to shoot the ball. Even Ben Simmons is saying “you’re open.”

C) Carter Bryant becomes our 3&D guy. We’ve seen it happen before with rookie Kawhi. Just have legitimate length and athleticism and try hard while making open shots and you will always have a spot on the roster. Can Carter make 3s? Can Carters defense translate to the NBA? Idk but his shot diet are going to be James Hardenesque. All 3s and dunks. No inbetween. And in reality he will only get about 7 shots a game. That’s it. Tough ask for a rookie to get in a rhythm as a role player with such limited opportunities on the offensive side but that will be the ask for him.

IMO both A and B are impossible. Vassell has no urgency to play defense and I’m pretty sure is ADHD. While Sochans injury prevents him from practicing his shot anymore. Not that his workouts with his shooting were productive anyways. But Sochan will never be a good shooter from deep.

That leaves option C. And boys I am a believer in option C. I think Carter Bryant should be our day 1 starter.

[Mnky]

Couple of billion years ago the building blocks for DNA and amino acids fell into the earth’s oceans and in that warm broth man was created. Then a couple of thousand years ago man created the fairy tales of Jesus and Mohammed and began killing each other in God’s name. Most recently the spiritual leader, rapist, pedophile and con man Trump has picked up the calling to carry on God’s work. Not that complicateded.

That's not at all how life started. The Miller Urey experiment created a unique circumstance that had the perfect environment and control settings to accidently cause a perfect chemical reaction to create the necessary abiotic amino acids that could plausibly be accidently recreated millions of time that could plausibly hopefully create another extremely unlikely circumstance that perfectly crafted the unique environment and control settings to plausibly take a step in the right direction, out of the billions possible, to start building a biotic foundation.

There's about 4 or 5 Guesstimation encounters that must be fulfilled perfectly to theorize a "possible" pathway from for life to be conceived. This is a leap of faith far greater than any religious scroll on the planet.

There is a law in Biology called abiogenesis that has held true through all of known life. Life comes from life. Life has never been born outside of life. The Miller Urey experiment, even though it provided step 1 in multiple faith leaps to breaking this law, did not recreate the necessary steps for life even in the perfectly controlled and manipulated experiment.

This isn't even the kicker to existence. Wait until you read about how perfect and necessary the element carbon is and how the theorized likelihood of carbon "not" being designed is 1x10-27.

.00000000000000000000000000027 % chance it could accidently appear in a perfect environment and control settings.

When you study astrophysics and biochemistry, you find how much more probable life was a "creation theory" or "fairy tale" than it was any scientific explanation know to man.

Bias leads people one way or another. Science itself, points to the fairy tales being right.

[jermaine]

Old Testament: I want some nasty.
New Testament: That's not who we are.

"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at its end.. Your Highness"

[Splits]

If I’m the Spurs there are three ways we can make the playoffs. If all 3 happen then we win the damn title.
a) Vassell becomes a true 3&D player.

B) Sochan learns how to play offense and he become our 3&D guy.



:lmao

[scott]

This isn't even the kicker to existence. Wait until you read about how perfect and necessary the element carbon is and how the theorized likelihood of carbon "not" being designed is 1x10-27.

.00000000000000000000000000027 % chance it could accidently appear in a perfect environment and control settings.



Just wait until you find out how big the universe is.

[rjv]

69 more days can't go by fast enough.

[spurraider21]

That's not at all how life started. The Miller Urey experiment created a unique circumstance that had the perfect environment and control settings to accidently cause a perfect chemical reaction to create the necessary abiotic amino acids that could plausibly be accidently recreated millions of time that could plausibly hopefully create another extremely unlikely circumstance that perfectly crafted the unique environment and control settings to plausibly take a step in the right direction, out of the billions possible, to start building a biotic foundation.

There's about 4 or 5 Guesstimation encounters that must be fulfilled perfectly to theorize a "possible" pathway from for life to be conceived. This is a leap of faith far greater than any religious scroll on the planet.

There is a law in Biology called abiogenesis that has held true through all of known life. Life comes from life. Life has never been born outside of life. The Miller Urey experiment, even though it provided step 1 in multiple faith leaps to breaking this law, did not recreate the necessary steps for life even in the perfectly controlled and manipulated experiment.

This isn't even the kicker to existence. Wait until you read about how perfect and necessary the element carbon is and how the theorized likelihood of carbon "not" being designed is 1x10-27.

.00000000000000000000000000027 % chance it could accidently appear in a perfect environment and control settings.

When you study astrophysics and biochemistry, you find how much more probable life was a "creation theory" or "fairy tale" than it was any scientific explanation know to man.

Bias leads people one way or another. Science itself, points to the fairy tales being right.
grab a deck of 52 cards. give it a nice shuffle.

you only had a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000012397999% chance of getting your combination. does this make your shuffle a fairy tale?

[Leetonidas]

"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at its end.. Your Highness"
You loved my father I know. But so did I. That makes us brothers doesn't it? Smile for me now brother *stab*

[KobesAchilles]

:lmao
I’m not exactly holding my breath either :lol

[BatManu20]

ah yes the much nicer story of creating your son for the sole purpose of being brutally murdered despite being innocent

https://i.redd.it/qqaibflj3tv11.jpg

[Mnky]

Just wait until you find out how big the universe is.

80% of it is empty. That is to our limited knowledge and understanding. Im sure one day we will have a working understand for dark matter and energy but it is beyond our comprehension as of now.

This is another point of evidence against the scientific side of things. A true singularity expansion would have a universe that was filled, not empty. That is unless you applied the repeating burst model that is gaining steam with the bounce theory.

All of this to say, without Carbon, none of it would matter either way. Carbon is called a god element for a reason.

Carbon creation is more fascinating than the universe creation tbh.

[Mnky]

grab a deck of 52 cards. give it a nice shuffle.

you only had a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000012397999% chance of getting your combination. does this make your shuffle a fairy tale?

Science is going with the numbers. The higher chance of likelihood and repeated results is the scientific process. Probability helps us quantify uncertainty.

The point was that it is faith to believe in the tooth fairy. It is faith to believe in the big bang. They are both uncertainties.

Some people believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus, some people believe in the Virgin birth of the universe.

They're both beliefs.

[ChumpDumper]

Science is going with the numbers. So we shouldn't go with your attempt at numbers?

[spurraider21]

Science is going with the numbers. The higher chance of likelihood and repeated results is the scientific process. Probability helps us quantify uncertainty.

The point was that it is faith to believe in the tooth fairy. It is faith to believe in the big bang. They are both uncertainties.

Some people believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus, some people believe in the Virgin birth of the universe.

They're both beliefs.
there is evidence for the big bang. people didnt just make a random guess and say "i think there was a big bang and thats how the universe came to be." it was hypothesized based on avaiable evidence and all the evidence/data we've gathered since then has only solidified its merits. this evidence has come in the form of observation, measurements, and the bolstered by the fact that predictions made consistent with the theory have shown to be true.

what is the evidence for the tooth fairy?

what is the evidence for the virgin birth of jesus?

[cutewizard]

There is a problem with the way our scientists have been studying Reality also

Sequential thought dominates the current paradigm when in fact most of Reality May be nonlinear

[ismael-robert]

https://i.redd.it/qqaibflj3tv11.jpg

He doesn't do anything. Its Your choice, your own doing

[spurraider21]

He doesn't do anything. Its Your choice, your own doing
im sorry, who judges you upon death and dictates how things go for you afterwards?

[Mnky]

So we shouldn't go with your attempt at numbers?

I'm arguing from the science perspective? I'm not sure what you think is going on. Bias usually leads to odd conclusions.

[Mnky]

there is evidence for the big bang. people didnt just make a random guess and say "i think there was a big bang and thats how the universe came to be." it was hypothesized based on avaiable evidence and all the evidence/data we've gathered since then has only solidified its merits. this evidence has come in the form of observation, measurements, and the bolstered by the fact that predictions made consistent with the theory have shown to be true.

what is the evidence for the tooth fairy?

what is the evidence for the virgin birth of jesus?
I'm using the tooth fairy as symbolism for religion.

As far as Jesus, eye witness accounts. More eye witness
accounts than almost any other figure in history. Jesus the Man lived and walked the earth. There are more records of evidence of Jesus than there are for the big bang.
The evidence that is provided concerning Jesus, says it was a virgin birth. Whether you like that evidence or agree with it is not relevant towards it existing or being applied by scholars. It was accounted for and based on available evidence and most of the evidence/data scholars have gathered since then has solidified merits.


All of the big bang evidence data absolutely has not solidified its merits. There are plenty of alternative theories, two of which mentioned, that fit the evidence better than the big bang theory which has been losing merit, not gaining it, the past decade. What you mention is the same argument applied by historians in favor of Jesus. It's also not accurate to what's actually happen in science concerning the big bang theory.

The big bang theory's bigger criticisms are the discrepancy in makeup of the existence we can truly observe not matching the theory, meaning what we actually observe and see..doesn't fit the model. The observed ratios of elements are flat out wrong in our universe for the big bang theory
model to be correct.

This plus what I've mentioned before concerning dark matter and energy being a big argument against it. These are all pretty standard and known discrepancies with the theory in the science community. They've been known for quite a while as well. It isn't new. People like to say the big bang theory is the most "widely accepted " theory. This can mean there are not many other theories known as much as anything. It does not in anyway mean it is the right theory. The evidence we have says it's not, as of right now. Science proves things wrong, not right. We are often very wrong in science due to our limited understanding. The more we get wrong, the more we learn about the truth.

[ismael-robert]

im sorry, who judges you upon death and dictates how things go for you afterwards?

Yeah guess I could've made it simpler...Sure He's the judge but He basically doesn't have to do anything as its your decisions that seal your own fates...basically you asked to be separated from Him on earth so He just grants your wish for eternity...doesn't force Himself where he's not wanted

[ChumpDumper]

I'm arguing from the science perspective? I'm not sure what you think is going on. Bias usually leads to odd conclusions.

It sure does. I'm not sure what you think is going on.

[stnick2261]

This is about as fun as the political thread derailments. Take it to DMs. This has nothing to do with Carter Bryant.

[spurraider21]

I'm using the tooth fairy as symbolism for religion. As far as Jesus, eye witness accounts. More eye witness accounts than almost any other figure in history. Jesus the Man lived and walked the earth. There are more records of evidence of Jesus than there are for the big bang. The evidence that is provided concerning Jesus, says it was a virgin birth. Whether you like that evidence or agree with it is not relevant towards it existing or being applied by scholars. It was accounted for and based on available evidence and most of the evidence/data scholars have gathered since then has solidified merits.

i asked about the virgin birth of jesus, not whether some guy walked the earth claiming to be the son of god. there is a general consensus by historians that the historicity of jesus is not in question. it is not true that "the evidence that is provided concerning jesus, says it was a virgin birth." the virgin birth is described only in the gospels of matthew and luke. despite the names of those gospels, their authors are anonymous, and these were both composed 40+ years after jesus' death. there are several other historical accounts of jesus, which were more contemporaneous than the gospels. and those dont document a virgin birth.


All of the big bang evidence data absolutely has not solidified its merits. There are plenty of alternative theories, two of which mentioned, that fit the evidence better than the big bang theory which has been losing merit, not gaining it, the past decade. What you mention is the same argument applied by historians in favor of Jesus. It's also not accurate to what's actually happen in science concerning the big bang theory.The big bang theory's bigger criticisms are the discrepancy in makeup of the existence we can truly observe not matching the theory, meaning what we actually observe and see..doesn't fit the model. The observed ratios of elements are flat out wrong in our universe for the big bang theory model to be correct. This plus what I've mentioned before concerning dark matter and energy being a big argument against it. These are all pretty standard and known discrepancies with the theory in the science community. They've been known for quite a while as well. It isn't new. People like to say the big bang theory is the most "widely accepted " theory. This can mean there are not many other theories known as much as anything. It does not in anyway mean it is the right theory. The evidence we have says it's not, as of right now. Science proves things wrong, not right. We are often very wrong in science due to our limited understanding. The more we get wrong, the more we learn about the truth.

the big bang model itself is not controversial whatsoever in the scientific community and has not been "losing merit." the universe is expanding, and its rate of expansion is increasing. its a math problem which was figured out a while ago, by a catholic priest, no less. the discovery of cosmic background radiation, while itself not irrefutable proof of the big bang model, is very strong evidence in its favor and was only predicted to exist as a result of the big bang model.

and while there is an unsolved problem re: the abundance of lithium (there is less than was expected), the the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium are also necessary outcomes of the big bang model. now its true that the existing specific model cannot account for observable lithium levels, but the general concept of an expansion from a hot dense state is not in question anymore by virtually anybody in the scientific community.the lithium problem you are likely referring to is an unknown which indicates scientists dont have a good enough grasp yet of roughly the first post-bang minute.

like you said, the more we get wrong, the more we learn about the truth. they've gotten lithium levels wrong, so they need to learn more. but you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. newtonian physics could not accurately explain the orbit of mercury, and we didnt really figure that one out until general relativity. but general relativity did not require us to discard newtonian physics, though it did more accurate describe gravitational effects in extreme conditions. similarly, while the lithium question is a legitimate one, there is no reason to believe that it will require us to move on from the general big bang model

[scott]

This is about as fun as the political thread derailments. Take it to DMs. This has nothing to do with Carter Bryant.

I'm waiting for the AI generated "Carter Bryant destroys Neil deGrasse Tyson!" YouTube videos to pop up on some Karoline Levitt fanpage, tbh.

[scott]

spurraider21, scientific theory keeps evolving, so therefor Jesus must have been born to a virgin mother which proves he is simultaneously himself, his dad, and his ghost.

[BSfromTX]

Bible: translated who knows how many times through several different languages. Some scrolls were used and others tossed out (Book of Enoch). New bible can only be published if it is roughly 7-10% variance of translation. I would not focus on the details of that book.

Science: Unfortunately some theories are NOT scrutinized as they should be. Evolution is proven, but not as the sole way we came to be. The big bang theory takes the biggest leap of faith. To look at the human body and say it was simply an accident is far reaching.

Zacharia Sitchen has some good books that bring science, other worlds/religion together. Forbidden History ( edited by J Douglas Kenyon) is another eye opener. Our history is definitely hidden from us. I think all possibilities have parts to offer.

Christ loved and served others unconditionally. Not a bad message to take away. Christ also made it clear that we are not to judge... unfortunately that happens all the time from people of all beliefs.

If Carter Bryant wants to pursue the word of God, good for him. I can think of a lot of worse things a 19 yo with new money could be doing.

[Mnky]

i asked about the virgin birth of jesus, not whether some guy walked the earth claiming to be the son of god. there is a general consensus by historians that the historicity of jesus is not in question. it is not true that "the evidence that is provided concerning jesus, says it was a virgin birth." the virgin birth is described only in the gospels of matthew and luke. despite the names of those gospels, their authors are anonymous, and these were both composed 40+ years after jesus' death. there are several other historical accounts of jesus, which were more contemporaneous than the gospels. and those dont document a virgin birth.



the big bang model itself is not controversial whatsoever in the scientific community and has not been "losing merit." the universe is expanding, and its rate of expansion is increasing. its a math problem which was figured out a while ago, by a catholic priest, no less. the discovery of cosmic background radiation, while itself not irrefutable proof of the big bang model, is very strong evidence in its favor and was only predicted to exist as a result of the big bang model.

and while there is an unsolved problem re: the abundance of lithium (there is less than was expected), the the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium are also necessary outcomes of the big bang model. now its true that the existing specific model cannot account for observable lithium levels, but the general concept of an expansion from a hot dense state is not in question anymore by virtually anybody in the scientific community.the lithium problem you are likely referring to is an unknown which indicates scientists dont have a good enough grasp yet of roughly the first post-bang minute.

like you said, the more we get wrong, the more we learn about the truth. they've gotten lithium levels wrong, so they need to learn more. but you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. newtonian physics could not accurately explain the orbit of mercury, and we didnt really figure that one out until general relativity. but general relativity did not require us to discard newtonian physics, though it did more accurate describe gravitational effects in extreme conditions. similarly, while the lithium question is a legitimate one, there is no reason to believe that it will require us to move on from the general big bang model

The big bang absolutely is controversial. That is why there are alternatives to patch the holes it has just like all theories that are developing. Every major theory still in progression is controversial. That's how science works. There isnt such a thing as strong evidence or weak evidence when in reference to a singular event. There is evidence for and against. There can be a strong amount of evidence but the evidence itself isn't strong or weak. All it takes is one point of evidence to disprove a theory. There is evidence against the big bang theory. That is why it is a theory and not a law. That point of contention isn't controversial. It's widely accepted. The controversial part is how people still believe theory and law are the same thing and argue like it is an accepted conclusion because that's all they know.

The Jesus thing is such an odd side by side because you're literally using the same type of argument for the big bang theory to keep faith in it that you're arguing against using for Jesus having a virgin birth.

The evidence that is provided historically says it was a virgin birth. That evidence is corrobarated with historical findings and documents to have merit. Your personal choice and feelings on religious " beliefs" and "fairy tales" are not relevant at all in how history and science works. Evidence is for and against. The evidence is for a virgin birth. Historically it's as strong of a case as any notable historical figure, If not more.

You're more than welcome to just say.."nah.. I don't believe the evidence." That's fine. That's okay. It still exists. People can choose to not believe in the evidence for gravity, that's fine. It still exists.

It's odd to see people use evidence for an argument and say "this evidence proves a virgin birth of a universe but don't pay attention to the evidence against it. It doesn't have merit. "

And turn around and say, "this evidence doesn't prove a virgin birth of Jesus but pay attention to the evidence that doesnt exist that is wasn't. It has merit. "

Evidence is either a reliable thing or not. If you get to personally choose which ones you believe, stop acting like your argument is holier than thou. It's just another opinion based on what you choose to have faith in.

[Guru of Nothing]

Hello Cleveland!

[spurraider21]

The big bang absolutely is controversial. That is why there are alternatives to patch the holes it has just like all theories that are developing. Every major theory still in progression is controversial. That's how science works. There isnt such a thing as strong evidence or weak evidence when in reference to a singular event. There is evidence for and against. There can be a strong amount of evidence but the evidence itself isn't strong or weak. All it takes is one point of evidence to disprove a theory. There is evidence against the big bang theory. That is why it is a theory and not a law. That point of contention isn't controversial. It's widely accepted. The controversial part is how people still believe theory and law are the same thing and argue like it is an accepted conclusion because that's all they know.
honestly, if this is the level of discourse, i'm done here. this is a talking point from like, high school level "evolution is just a theory" nonsense debates. its boring. theories dont graduate to become laws. at least in the hard sciences, laws are typically things that can be expressed as mathematical expressions, whereas a theory is a proposed explanation for "why" something happens. they are fundamentally different.

but to humor me, please, point me in the direction of the proposed alternatives to the general big bang concept that can actually be found in published academic literature by phsyicists/astrophysicists?

as for it only taking one point of evidence to disprove a theory... yes and no. it may be enough to disprove one very specific model/interpretation. if you wanted to disprove the entire concept of the big bang theory, you'd need something completely incompatible with the overarching concept. a distant galaxy shown to be moving toward us rather than away from us (blue shift as opposed to red shift). that would turn the theory over its head or at the very least require a completely new understanding of how it works. many theories can be tweaked and reworked and still be reconciled, depending on the nature of the new evidence. some simply cannot survive the new evidence. the lithium problem is not considered to be the latter, at least in the actual scientific community. again, the theory of gravity had to be reworked over time. doesnt mean we stopped believing that separate bodies of mass interact with and attract one another. but the very specific newtonian model had to be tweaked.

[Leetonidas]

Being an adult and not understanding the difference between a theory and scientific theory is embarrassing

[spurraider21]

The Jesus thing is such an odd side by side because you're literally using the same type of argument for the big bang theory to keep faith in it that you're arguing against using for Jesus having a virgin birth.

The evidence that is provided historically says it was a virgin birth. That evidence is corrobarated with historical findings and documents to have merit. Your personal choice and feelings on religious " beliefs" and "fairy tales" are not relevant at all in how history and science works. Evidence is for and against. The evidence is for a virgin birth. Historically it's as strong of a case as any notable historical figure, If not more.
there being a good historical track record of him existing as a person is very different from there being a historical account of him being born of a virgin. these two claims dont have to be taken as a package deal. having a fair amount of documentation from historians around that time is good evidence of him having existed. there being two anonymous authoris, claiming 70 years after his birth, that he was born of a virgin, is not compelling evidence. what can be corroborated from the gospels of matthew and luke are that jesus existed. the other parts cannot.

but i also dont know by what metric you claim that its "as strong of a case as any notable historical figure, if not more." what is this being measured by?


You're more than welcome to just say.."nah.. I don't believe the evidence." That's fine. That's okay. It still exists. People can choose to not believe in the evidence for gravity, that's fine. It still exists.
contrary to your claim that there is no such thing as weak evidence or strong evidence, i dont think thats a reasonable position. if i wanted to prove that somebody robbed a bank in new york, having a document that shows he flew into new york on the morning of the robbery is evidence. its just weak. it doesnt carry too much weight other than establishing he seemed to be in the general vicinity near the time of the incident. but having video footage of him sprinting out of the bank minutes after the alarm goes off, with him carrying a bag apparently full of something, would be more compelling evidence.

given the limitations that we are dealing with ancient tales, there is only a limited amount of certainty we have with respect to history. however, given that we can point to multiple historical accounts of him existing, i think there is, to the best degree we can hope for, fairly compelling evidence of him having existed. i dont think the gospels carry nearly as much weight as historical accounts. so is there any degree of evidence of the virgin birth? sure, two anonymous authors claiming so. but alas, it was written decades later, anonymously, by people who dont claim to have been witnessed. i dont assign much weight at all to them as a basis of belief


It's odd to see people use evidence for an argument and say "this evidence proves a virgin birth of a universe but don't pay attention to the evidence against it. It doesn't have merit. "

And turn around and say, "this evidence doesn't prove a virgin birth of Jesus but pay attention to the evidence that doesnt exist that is wasn't. It has merit. "
"virgin birth of a universe" is very cute, but im not here to play semantics. the evidence does not necesarily "prove" the big bang. its just that the evidence we have, the observations we've made, are consistent with an expanding universe from a singularity. the question of exactly how much lithium is out there, is not one that contradicts the broader conclusion that the universe began with a singularity or not. rather, it just means the previously proposed mathematical expression of that model was flawed and needs refinement or a better understanding.


Evidence is either a reliable thing or not. If you get to personally choose which ones you believe, stop acting like your argument is holier than thou. It's just another opinion based on what you choose to have faith in.
its on a scale of reliability. evidence in the form of recordable observations which can be repeated is quite reliable. evidence based on anonymous accounts decades after a purportive incident by people who were not witnesses, is not very reliable.

[spurraider21]

reminder that plate tectonics is just a theory, as is the germ theory of disease

[SupremeGuy]

Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh :lol

[pad300]

Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh :lol

That wouldn't be wrong...

[cutewizard]

Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh :lol


Hahahaha

[cutewizard]

https://youtu.be/y9VoGsrBhX4?si=9JYyBP9WLYAIz7ET

[cutewizard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ApTqkKlkE

[ambchang]

Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh :lol

He can read any thread on this forum and know the fanbase is insane.

[rjv]

Carter Bryant is reading these posts thinking our fanbase is insane tbh :lol


:lol . . . . and has nothing better to do than to argue about religion on a basketball site.

[pgardn]

Science is going with the numbers. The higher chance of likelihood and repeated results is the scientific process. Probability helps us quantify uncertainty.

The point was that it is faith to believe in the tooth fairy. It is faith to believe in the big bang. They are both uncertainties.

Some people believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus, some people believe in the Virgin birth of the universe.

They're both beliefs.

This is misrepresentation. Certainty can be compared.

There is a whole bunch of physical evidence right now for the Big Bang. It is categorized and written, checked and rechecked (analyze experiments). The physical explanations for the Big Bang work right now and do a pretty good job of predicting physical occurrence right now and in predicting the future at specific moments in the future. But as far as the how the universe “ends”, that’s difficult because we don’t even really know what we mean by ends. Lots to still figure out... Definitions to be made clear.

“Before” the Big Bang, the proper thing to say is, “we don’t know.” Religion says we do know. That’s a HUGE difference. Science is merely a primate’s method of understanding the things that go on around him. But in a very specific way. A way that uses a logical, more rigorous and more believable tools for understanding . Science. You can’t just say belief, and leave it at that. You have to ask why you believe the way you do and weigh your feelings of how certain you are. Ex. Why did that bean bag you threw up on the shelf “suddenly” fall after a week? It’s a ghost? Or go through shifting center of mass and gravity? Which belief do you have more faith in? Or, if it is beyond our capabilities right now, “we don’t know.” Then physicists would say, “if we could just measure this amount of energy in this very small distance (space) we might be able to….” But we can’t, and it might never be possible to do so (look up Planck length and associated energies). So Science says “ WE DONT KNOW” This does not mean we give up. It may also mean some people (primates) then switch to the supernatural explanations and are no longer doing science.

Science is a way we use to struggle to understand, and I do mean struggle. So is religion. Religion is based on the supernatural. So people pretend they are using science to bolster or refute religious beliefs without realizing these struggles are used to answer entirely different questions. Because religion has been used to answer questions we know to be unlikely (even bizarre) using science, at this moment in our struggles, well, religion has been crapped on.

I see it as a stay in your lane thing.

Also your perfection of nature misrepresentations, especially about the unlikelyhood of events (atoms being perfect) and the idea of what “perfection” means are old and worn out. SR hit on one idea with the miracle of basically picking up a certain grain of sand on the beach and calling it miraculous (with cards and math) therefore some sort of miracle of perfection. . There is so much more to tear apart here. Especially gaps in our knowledge of how life might have begun. Enough. Apologies to the board for coffee at lunch.

[pgardn]

On point.

Thanks to so many posters for their opinions on players and the economic realities of running an NBA team.
This forum is so much better than the national press on the Spurs as it should be.

[spurraider21]

SR hit on one idea with the miracle of basically picking up a certain grain of sand on the beach and calling it miraculous (with cards and math) therefore some sort of miracle of perfection.
right, things are only amazing if you suppose that one outcome HAD to happen. like shaking a jar of jellybeans and having 10 blues at the top, then 10 greens below that, and 10 reds below that might seem amazing. but its no more amazing than getting 1 green, 2 reds, 2 greens, 3 blues, 1 green, etc etc

[Mnky]

This is misrepresentation. Certainty can be compared.

There is a whole bunch of physical evidence right now for the Big Bang. It is categorized and written, checked and rechecked (analyze experiments). The physical explanations for the Big Bang work right now and do a pretty good job of predicting physical occurrence right now and in predicting the future at specific moments in the future. But as far as the how the universe “ends”, that’s difficult because we don’t even really know what we mean by ends. Lots to still figure out... Definitions to be made clear.

“Before” the Big Bang, the proper thing to say is, “we don’t know.” Religion says we do know. That’s a HUGE difference. Science is merely a primate’s method of understanding the things that go on around him. But in a very specific way. A way that uses a logical, more rigorous and more believable tools for understanding . Science. You can’t just say belief, and leave it at that. You have to ask why you believe the way you do and weigh your feelings of how certain you are. Ex. Why did that bean bag you threw up on the shelf “suddenly” fall after a week? It’s a ghost? Or go through shifting center of mass and gravity? Which belief do you have more faith in? Or, if it is beyond our capabilities right now, “we don’t know.” Then physicists would say, “if we could just measure this amount of energy in this very small distance (space) we might be able to….” But we can’t, and it might never be possible to do so (look up Planck length and associated energies). So Science says “ WE DONT KNOW” This does not mean we give up. It may also mean some people (primates) then switch to the supernatural explanations and are no longer doing science.

Science is a way we use to struggle to understand, and I do mean struggle. So is religion. Religion is based on the supernatural. So people pretend they are using science to bolster or refute religious beliefs without realizing these struggles are used to answer entirely different questions. Because religion has been used to answer questions we know to be unlikely (even bizarre) using science, at this moment in our struggles, well, religion has been crapped on.

I see it as a stay in your lane thing.

Also your perfection of nature misrepresentations, especially about the unlikelyhood of events (atoms being perfect) and the idea of what “perfection” means are old and worn out. SR hit on one idea with the miracle of basically picking up a certain grain of sand on the beach and calling it miraculous (with cards and math) therefore some sort of miracle of perfection. . There is so much more to tear apart here. Especially gaps in our knowledge of how life might have begun. Enough. Apologies to the board for coffee at lunch.

This is one of those things where you attempt to define religion by your own terms and preference but also not allowing the opposition to do the same in regards. It just doesn't work that way. You can't decide that everything that benefits your argument is substantial and everything that doesn't is not.

Carbon is known as a God element. It's not old or worn out? That isn't how science works. Science literally never stops questioning. It doesnt say we don't know, it makes a leap of faith based on evidence and goes through repeatable steps to support that faith. Science is absolutely a belief system. You believe that the science you never conducted yourself is solidified simply because you heard or witness other people say so. Literally.. eye witness accounts, which is the back bone foundation of what supports all religions.

You haven't conducted any of those experiments and have not seen or experienced the evidence yourself in any case. You simply trusted someone and had faith that the process was pure and immune to corruption because it's run by...men? As if scientists throughout the ages haven't used science as a political tool to push agendas on a consistent basis. Science is a leap of faith in what they believe to be true based on what they've heard from others.
Outside of laws, all theories are constantly being proven wrong and evolving. This is how science works. Yet somehow people will believe and fight for a theory whole heartedly based on faith of eye witness testimony while attempting to ridicule a religion based on eye witness testimony.

Facts don't change because of how much faith you have in man's perfect and incorruptible testimony of what science is and isn't. Until you do every experiment yourself, you're still walking in faith that the system works and is being held to the standards it should be over hundreds of years without anyone editing or corrupting it for personal gain.

Sounds like a familiar tale.

There's nothing wrong with science. It's not what people are attempting to portray it as. Science is the absolute displine of being humble and self aware. It is filled with holes and errors. That's why it's exciting and never slows down gets old, contrary to what youre attempting to argue.

[Mnky]

right, things are only amazing if you suppose that one outcome HAD to happen. like shaking a jar of jellybeans and having 10 blues at the top, then 10 greens below that, and 10 reds below that might seem amazing. but its no more amazing than getting 1 green, 2 reds, 2 greens, 3 blues, 1 green, etc etc

That's not at all what the premise is. You simply don't know anything about carbon and I'm sure you've never taken an organic chemistry class to even have a rudimentary understanding of it. That isn't an insult or a derogatory comment, it's literal in the sense that your ignorance does not allow you to understand the complexity and absolute brilliance of Carbon and the vast possibilities this one single element birthed. Until we catch up to the point of understanding how it could be possibly exist, it is truly a miracle of existence. Outside of a diety working their magic, it's hard to phantom a situation where all of these perfect instances came together for reality to function the way it does.

Your brain only comprehends the jellybean analogy because you haven't been exposed to the intricate details of the topic. A basic entry level org. Chem class would leave no room for such an analogy in your mind.

[ChumpDumper]

carbon = neat

[SPURt]

All humans have managed to create are systems of greed. But at least we have the Spurs.

[spurraider21]

That's not at all what the premise is. You simply don't know anything about carbon and I'm sure you've never taken an organic chemistry class to even have a rudimentary understanding of it. That isn't an insult or a derogatory comment, it's literal in the sense that your ignorance does not allow you to understand the complexity and absolute brilliance of Carbon and the vast possibilities this one single element birthed. Until we catch up to the point of understanding how it could be possibly exist, it is truly a miracle of existence. Outside of a diety working their magic, it's hard to phantom a situation where all of these perfect instances came together for reality to function the way it does.

Your brain only comprehends the jellybean analogy because you haven't been exposed to the intricate details of the topic. A basic entry level org. Chem class would leave no room for such an analogy in your mind.
I studied biochemistry in undergrad at ucla. I tutored AP Chem for money during college.

I’m not a physicist or scientist by trade but i have a reasonable understanding of the fundamentals needed for this discussion. Carbon is fascinating. There are more compounds with carbon than all other elements combined. My favorite part of AP Chem was the rudimentary o-chem section learning about hydrocarbons, balancing combustion reactions, etc

its weird to randomly make that flex.

do you think we had to scrap the theory of gravity altogether because Newtonian physics couldn’t account for the orbit of mercury?

edit: f it. I just remembered someone from my class posted this to YouTube. This is me freshman year


https://youtu.be/19VnQLNYcuw?si=ebV-SLuyNJA1-063

[spurraider21]

carbon = neat
Therefore creationism

[ginobilized]

Old Testament: I want some nasty.
New Testament: That's not who we are.

I'm late in praising this as quite possibly the funniest comment I've read here in my many yrs on ST. Well done, LeBowen!

[pgardn]

This is one of those things where you attempt to define religion by your own terms and preference but also not allowing the opposition to do the same in regards. It just doesn't work that way. You can't decide that everything that benefits your argument is substantial and everything that doesn't is not.

Carbon is known as a God element. It's not old or worn out? That isn't how science works. Science literally never stops questioning. It doesnt say we don't know, it makes a leap of faith based on evidence and goes through repeatable steps to support that faith. Science is absolutely a belief system. You believe that the science you never conducted yourself is solidified simply because you heard or witness other people say so. Literally.. eye witness accounts, which is the back bone foundation of what supports all religions.

You haven't conducted any of those experiments and have not seen or experienced the evidence yourself in any case. You simply trusted someone and had faith that the process was pure and immune to corruption because it's run by...men? As if scientists throughout the ages haven't used science as a political tool to push agendas on a consistent basis. Science is a leap of faith in what they believe to be true based on what they've heard from others.
Outside of laws, all theories are constantly being proven wrong and evolving. This is how science works. Yet somehow people will believe and fight for a theory whole heartedly based on faith of eye witness testimony while attempting to ridicule a religion based on eye witness testimony.

Facts don't change because of how much faith you have in man's perfect and incorruptible testimony of what science is and isn't. Until you do every experiment yourself, you're still walking in faith that the system works and is being held to the standards it should be over hundreds of years without anyone editing or corrupting it for personal gain.

Sounds like a familiar tale.

There's nothing wrong with science. It's not what people are attempting to portray it as. Science is the absolute displine of being humble and self aware. It is filled with holes and errors. That's why it's exciting and never slows down gets old, contrary to what youre attempting to argue.

Carbon is known as the God element…? Just like some physics calls the discovery of the Higgs boson thus the Higgs field “a god particle”
This is POPULAR way of selling books and discoveries. It’s a POPULAR way of “dusting the hands” off and saying WE are finished here, the primate has figured out God’s plan. Which is utter bullshit. Science has figured out God and it’s so incredibly perfect!

Many people love this nonsense because it’s comforting, implies perfection AND, YOU, yes you….were lucky enough to live in the age where everything top notch happened! If anything, Science has taught us that the questions of how the universe and everything else in it has raised more questions and might even indicate we will never understand everything because we are primates that have evolved for life suited for describing the universe using ranges of measurement that don’t come close to describing a universe that needs to be studied at the PHYSICAL EXTREMES which we cannot measure because it involves distances that are way too tiny and energies that are way too large. We are so far removed from these extremes by the biology that rules our ability to sense everything ( constrained by evolution and the biochemistry of living things) and therefore have no analogies, metaphors that can describe the extremes.

This is where we are NOW. In fact I would say science becomes religion when we say, we know god’s plan, and damn, it’s perfect.

Please tell me your definition of religion because if science has allowed us to explain the supernatural, science makes absolutely no sense. Science tries to explain what can be explained via experiment and observation. Only certain questions can be answered using the method of science. So please expand on all of this and explain how I am misunderstanding religion and science. Carbon is perfect…

If we are supposed to back all of this up with credentials, I can give mine. But I believe if you really understand what science and religion are, what I have stated will be very reasonable. Btw I don’t dislike or think religious people are stupid. It makes sense to me that religion exists and will continue it’s interesting branching, extinction of some sects, and fighting amongst each other. And science will continue to be self critical if it is to remain science. Fewer will die arguing the method of science thankfully.

[pgardn]

Btw, people that “know” quantum mechanics often say if you really think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.

And it’s clearly because it does not make physical, mechanistic sense. But the math involved in doing quantum mechanics works well for right now for the tiniest of phenomena we try to understand.

If anyone wants what I consider to be outstanding understandable reading, I have some suggestions with specific chapters or pages.

On what should not be in a basketball forum. Apologies.

[pgardn]

I studied biochemistry in undergrad at ucla. I tutored AP Chem for money during college.

I’m not a physicist or scientist by trade but i have a reasonable understanding of the fundamentals needed for this discussion. Carbon is fascinating. There are more compounds with carbon than all other elements combined. My favorite part of AP Chem was the rudimentary o-chem section learning about hydrocarbons, balancing combustion reactions, etc

its weird to randomly make that flex.

do you think we had to scrap the theory of gravity altogether because Newtonian physics couldn’t account for the orbit of mercury?

edit: f it. I just remembered someone from my class posted this to YouTube. This is me freshman year


https://youtu.be/19VnQLNYcuw?si=ebV-SLuyNJA1-063

Your flex in my mind is understandable. Organic was a favorite of mine. I had very good professors though. That helped.
Extremely satisfying class for some reason.

[tonight...you]

Btw, people that “know” quantum mechanics often say if you really think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.

And it’s clearly because it does not make physical, mechanistic sense. But the math involved in doing quantum mechanics works well for right now for the tiniest of phenomena we try to understand.

If anyone wants what I consider to be outstanding understandable reading, I have some suggestions with specific chapters or pages.

On what should not be in a basketball forum. Apologies.
I'm interested. PM me, please.

[Joseph Kony]

I always find it amusing that jeebotards find it so hard to believe the big bang yet they are totally finally with an infinitely complex deity just existing without having been created and farting the universe into existence :lol because that makes way more sense

[spurraider21]

Your flex in my mind is understandable. Organic was a favorite of mine. I had very good professors though. That helped.
Extremely satisfying class for some reason.
It’s just very dumb. Everybody should be able to take part in this kind of discussion but mnky had to try and big time for no good reason as though what classes we have taken address the merits of the conversation. Rubbed me the wrong way is all

i enjoyed Ochem labs. But biochem and specifically p-Chem is when i realized i didn’t have a future in that field. And law school it was

[pgardn]

I'm interested. PM me, please.

Would you mind if I give the info in the thread?

I really don’t use other features of this site anymore. It’s degraded imo. Don’t spend much time here.
Would you want what I consider a great lecture for quantum mechanics and why it does and does not make sense? Public lecture.
Or more what science is and is not?

[Obstructed_View]

I always find it amusing that jeebotards find it so hard to believe the big bang yet they are totally finally with an infinitely complex deity just existing without having been created and farting the universe into existence :lol because that makes way more sense
I find it amusing that someone thinks one is more plausible than the other and tries to act superior about it.

[pgardn]

It’s just very dumb. Everybody should be able to take part in this kind of discussion but mnky had to try and big time for no good reason as though what classes we have taken address the merits of the conversation. Rubbed me the wrong way is all

i enjoyed Ochem labs. But biochem and specifically p-Chem is when i realized i didn’t have a future in that field. And law school it was

My father is a lawyer. Working at his office and listening made me understand I had no future in law. But my father really likes science.

And pChem at UT involved thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics required way too much math I did not understand the fit. Thermo, the math made sense. Those courses for science people meant you wanted a BS. So at UT you were headed for BS. So you just decided to take the LSAT after graduation? That’s a radical shift imo but some people do it.

Btw the lab in organic fit so well with the lecture (even though they were separate classes).
That made it a great class. And my fine motor skills are horrible. We used ground glass kits and I think I went through a few of those.$

[Joseph Kony]

I find it amusing that someone thinks one is more plausible than the other and tries to act superior about it.
Good for you

[Gagnrath]

Almost all the absurdly violent shit in the Bible is endorsed by the Bible. David killing men to sleep with their wives. There's even a scene where some kids poke fun at a man for being bald so God sends bears to murder the kids. Noah's daughters sleeping with him is endorsed by the Bible. The part I mentioned where Lot gives his daughters for townspeople to rape is endorsed in the Bible. God kills incredible amounts of innocent people in the Bible. There's really no getting around the fact that it's an insane book that should be read as anthropology and history and not taken seriously.

Now, we can take it that the New Testament was a refutation of the insane Old Testament, something an early figure like Marcion believed (because it is impossible to reconcile the old vengeful God and Jesus), but Christ kind of contradicts this at times, doesn't at others. And Marcion was rendered heretical before long.

But modern American Christians only believe in the Old Testament God of insanity, murder, hypocrisy, and so on, because it supports their worldviews and actions, rather than what Christ preached.

tl;dr the Bible is a mess of stories lashed together by fragile humans and then interpreted by elites in order to enforce their own awful behavior. But to say the Bible doesn't endorse murder, rape, slavery, abuse, and so on, is just false. It does.


Absolutely not we also believe in revelations which is a new testament book.

[ChumpDumper]

Absolutely not we also believe in revelations which is a new testament book.*Revelation

[Mnky]

I studied biochemistry in undergrad at ucla. I tutored AP Chem for money during college.

I’m not a physicist or scientist by trade but i have a reasonable understanding of the fundamentals needed for this discussion. Carbon is fascinating. There are more compounds with carbon than all other elements combined. My favorite part of AP Chem was the rudimentary o-chem section learning about hydrocarbons, balancing combustion reactions, etc

its weird to randomly make that flex.

do you think we had to scrap the theory of gravity altogether because Newtonian physics couldn’t account for the orbit of mercury?

edit: f it. I just remembered someone from my class posted this to YouTube. This is me freshman year


https://youtu.be/19VnQLNYcuw?si=ebV-SLuyNJA1-063

Undergrad biochem is a fun one. Mixing disciplines is always fun. Chemistry itself and organic chemistry aren't as close as their name suggests. AP Chem doesn't have anything more than a general introductory chemistry course does at the undergrad level. Both have no organic chemistry at all. Organic chemistry, once again, is an entirely different subject based on carbon forms. It is an entire course dedicated and built around how the organic world revolves around the Carbon element. I pointed out how off the analogies were in respect to the actuality of how in depth carbons necessity and sophistication are. It has an entire course dedicated to it and it is one of the most feared courses in all of science due to its complexities. I'm not sure what flex you were referring to honestly. If you meant what I said or what you said.

I simply couldn't stand for the disrespect put on carbons name and had to stand up for it. I know plenty of people with Doctoral degrees that are full of BS. When discussing details about a specific subject, creditability leans towards the one with experience without a doubt but I don't think having that experience necessarily qualifies a person to not be an imbecile. My reference towards the course was legitimate in regards to Carbon being a case of something science hasn't caught up to, and in many ways we are left with the scientific evidence supporting (through numbers) that it is beyond our understand and most likely a design outside of our current ability. Supernatural? Alien? Diety? Whatever you want to believe. The evidence suggests it is far more likely that Carbon was designed than anything. Which is why, as a science guy, it's so annoying to see people attack religion based arguments when practical science has so many steps of faith and belief in itself.

[Mnky]

I always find it amusing that jeebotards find it so hard to believe the big bang yet they are totally finally with an infinitely complex deity just existing without having been created and farting the universe into existence :lol because that makes way more sense

That goes both ways..They're literally the same argument. The thread has one side attacking the other though. I don't see the religion guys attacking science.

[Mnky]

It’s just very dumb. Everybody should be able to take part in this kind of discussion but mnky had to try and big time for no good reason as though what classes we have taken address the merits of the conversation. Rubbed me the wrong way is all

i enjoyed Ochem labs. But biochem and specifically p-Chem is when i realized i didn’t have a future in that field. And law school it was

Dont be a hypocrite. You know very well that the average person could not enter a courtroom with you and conduct themselves in the same manner you could. Having a discussion about general topics is for everyone. Not everyone can have a specific detail oriented discussion about complex scientific topics. I pointed out how your understanding was clearly not in a place to be making general claims about a topic you clearly didn't know about. It was not gatekeeping in anyway. The analogy was so wrong, it was clear there wasn't an understanding of the topic. Pointing that out is not at all trying to keep people from learning about it, it's encouraging them to.

[ismael-robert]

Actually as a Christian I have no problem with the big bang and believe that science got their best theory from God: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Ie. The big bang

[Mnky]

Carbon is known as the God element…? Just like some physics calls the discovery of the Higgs boson thus the Higgs field “a god particle”
This is POPULAR way of selling books and discoveries. It’s a POPULAR way of “dusting the hands” off and saying WE are finished here, the primate has figured out God’s plan. Which is utter bullshit. Science has figured out God and it’s so incredibly perfect!

Many people love this nonsense because it’s comforting, implies perfection AND, YOU, yes you….were lucky enough to live in the age where everything top notch happened! If anything, Science has taught us that the questions of how the universe and everything else in it has raised more questions and might even indicate we will never understand everything because we are primates that have evolved for life suited for describing the universe using ranges of measurement that don’t come close to describing a universe that needs to be studied at the PHYSICAL EXTREMES which we cannot measure because it involves distances that are way too tiny and energies that are way too large. We are so far removed from these extremes by the biology that rules our ability to sense everything ( constrained by evolution and the biochemistry of living things) and therefore have no analogies, metaphors that can describe the extremes.

This is where we are NOW. In fact I would say science becomes religion when we say, we know god’s plan, and damn, it’s perfect.

Please tell me your definition of religion because if science has allowed us to explain the supernatural, science makes absolutely no sense. Science tries to explain what can be explained via experiment and observation. Only certain questions can be answered using the method of science. So please expand on all of this and explain how I am misunderstanding religion and science. Carbon is perfect…

If we are supposed to back all of this up with credentials, I can give mine. But I believe if you really understand what science and religion are, what I have stated will be very reasonable. Btw I don’t dislike or think religious people are stupid. It makes sense to me that religion exists and will continue it’s interesting branching, extinction of some sects, and fighting amongst each other. And science will continue to be self critical if it is to remain science. Fewer will die arguing the method of science thankfully.

Definition of religion? Likely a belief system of morals, codes, and expectations to be in the group. I'm not a religion guy but a big theology guy as in a fan. More so likely because I'm a fan of historians and seminars. Learning about all the religions in world history is pretty cool and finding out about all their influences and hidden secrets. Me myself, not a religious person. Respect to those who are. I find many similarities to their commitment as I have in my studies. It's what I enjoy chasing.

The large majority of science was chasing the supernatural, or things we couldn't explain or define. It was our ignorance that gave it such a label. As the years went on, and we grew, advanced, and any supernatural and "magic" experiences were discovered as science. We just didn't understand it yet.

Religion and science shouldnt mix in most cases. Supernatural and science have always been hand in hand. It was just about how much understanding we had at the time that revealed the supernatural to be a form of science we just hadn't discovered yet.

I pointed this out already, but the credentialing wasn't the emphasis of the post. It was in defense of carbon. The element has an entire course dedicated to it. It's not a simple jelly bean analogy and it's not a "selling" point for books.
It is legitimately that complex, necessary, and unexplainably (currently) sophisticated in terms of design. It's called the god element in many cases because of how it is the center of all organic creation. You can't have anything organic without it. It's the "creator." Of elements.

Science is not self critical from the perspective of these conversations. Literally the science side is attempting to be critical of religion through science while also maintaining they shouldn't be in the same subject.

I just called bs out when I see it. Don't care what side someone's on. I'm a science guy. I can give my credentials as well but as I mentioned to another poster, I've seen plenty of people with Docs who couldn't tell you left from right. That wasn't the point of the message,as I pointed out when I posted it.

[Mnky]

Actually as a Christian I have no problem with the big bang and believe that science got their best theory from God: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Ie. The big bang

Genesis is filled with a ton of really cool secrets. It was fun studying that book when I was writing a research paper on Evolutionary mechanisms. I used it as a side by side on predictors. Genesis predicting water came from inside the earth before we found out that the majority of earths water likely came from inside the earth was a cool tidbit. Genesis also spoke of sea creatures being first and then turning to land animals ala evolution always gets people on both sides in a huff n puff. Genesis was oddly accurate on topics for being written before our understanding.

[spurraider21]

Undergrad biochem is a fun one. Mixing disciplines is always fun. Chemistry itself and organic chemistry aren't as close as their name suggests. AP Chem doesn't have anything more than a general introductory chemistry course does at the undergrad level. Both have no organic chemistry at all. Organic chemistry, once again, is an entirely different subject based on carbon forms. It is an entire course dedicated and built around how the organic world revolves around the Carbon element. I pointed out how off the analogies were in respect to the actuality of how in depth carbons necessity and sophistication are. It has an entire course dedicated to it and it is one of the most feared courses in all of science due to its complexities. I'm not sure what flex you were referring to honestly. If you meant what I said or what you said.

I simply couldn't stand for the disrespect put on carbons name and had to stand up for it. I know plenty of people with Doctoral degrees that are full of BS. When discussing details about a specific subject, creditability leans towards the one with experience without a doubt but I don't think having that experience necessarily qualifies a person to not be an imbecile. My reference towards the course was legitimate in regards to Carbon being a case of something science hasn't caught up to, and in many ways we are left with the scientific evidence supporting (through numbers) that it is beyond our understand and most likely a design outside of our current ability. Supernatural? Alien? Diety? Whatever you want to believe. The evidence suggests it is far more likely that Carbon was designed than anything. Which is why, as a science guy, it's so annoying to see people attack religion based arguments when practical science has so many steps of faith and belief in itself.
Wut

[Mnky]

Wut

This is why I said it was clear you didn't know what you were talking about. The way carbon works leans to it being designed. This is why the example of Carbon was used, but If you don't actually know anything about organic chemistry, you're left with this on the other end of the conversation.

[spurraider21]

Dont be a hypocrite. You know very well that the average person could not enter a courtroom with you and conduct themselves in the same manner you could. Having a discussion about general topics is for everyone. Not everyone can have a specific detail oriented discussion about complex scientific topics. I pointed out how your understanding was clearly not in a place to be making general claims about a topic you clearly didn't know about. It was not gatekeeping in anyway. The analogy was so wrong, it was clear there wasn't an understanding of the topic. Pointing that out is not at all trying to keep people from learning about it, it's encouraging them to.
Conducting oneself in a courtroom is a matter of experience not schooling. I’d say about 75% of law school was not very helpful to the actual profession. We also aren’t exactly getting into the weeds of the math behind the current big bang models so it’s not like either of us need to be professional astrophysicists.

I’ll ask again, did we need to throw out the entire theory of gravity when existing models were incapable of explaining the orbit of mercury, or did the model merely need refinement? And what is your evidence that the lithium issue requires a complete reworking of the Big Bang theory as opposed to a refinement?

[spurraider21]

This is why I said it was clear you didn't know what you were talking about. The way carbon works leans to it being designed. This is why the example of Carbon was used, but If you don't actually know anything about organic chemistry, you're left with this on the other end of the conversation.
You are just repeating yourself and not explaining yourself.

as for not knowing anything about Ochem, i suppose it’s true i haven’t done anything related for a decade but as a biochem major i had to take 4 separate Ochem classes in undergrad one of which was a lab course. And you haven’t demonstrated what this evidence is for carbon being designed. Or you can refer me to a published paper which makes the case for it

carbon has four valence electrons which gives it a lot of reactive flexibility. There are plenty of other elements with 4 but carbon is just the lightest of them making those compounds more stable. Like every other element. That’s all great. That doesn’t on its own imply design.

[Mnky]

Conducting oneself in a courtroom is a matter of experience not schooling. I’d say about 75% of law school was not very helpful to the actual profession. We also aren’t exactly getting into the weeds of the math behind the current big bang models so it’s not like either of us need to be professional astrophysicists.

I’ll ask again, did we need to throw out the entire theory of gravity when existing models were incapable of explaining the orbit of mercury, or did the model merely need refinement? And what is your evidence that the lithium issue requires a complete reworking of the Big Bang theory as opposed to a refinement?

You literally don't know about Carbon and tried to explain it's unique properties to a jelly bean analogy. This was pointed out. You DO need to know about Carbon to talk about carbon, let alone attempt to entertain arguments with it.

I honestly have no clue what else you're talking about. Feel like youre just randomly grasping at straws. Make a point and I can discuss the point.

I think I remember you saying that it "doesn't" take one point of evidence to disprove a theory.
Yes..yes it does. You can have a thousand forms of evidence to support a theory, but all it takes is one form to disprove it. That's how science works. We prove things wrong. We learn about being wrong and change it.

The current theory of the big bang has evidence for and against. It is not proven. We "believe" it is the most likely. That is a form of faith on the evidence we were given by other peoples eye witness accounts. That's how your life works whether you want to come to terms with it or not. Everyone lives by their own beliefs and faith. Science is filled with big leaps of faith by the guy/girl who everyone in the science community was screaming from the heavens was wrong and an imbecile.

[Mnky]

You are just repeating yourself and not explaining yourself.

as for not knowing anything about Ochem, i suppose it’s true i haven’t done anything related for a decade but as a biochem major i had to take 4 separate Ochem classes in undergrad one of which was a lab course. And you haven’t demonstrated what this evidence is for carbon being designed. Or you can refer me to a published paper which makes the case for it

carbon has four valence electrons which gives it a lot of reactive flexibility. There are plenty of other elements with 4 but carbon is just the lightest of them making those compounds more stable. Like every other element. That’s all great. That doesn’t on its own imply design.

Brother, you just keep proving my point of why it's difficult to argue with you about Carbon. You don't know enough to make a legitimate argument. Carbon isn't special because it's lighter? Okay. The entire organic chemistry course doesn't need to be taught anymore. It's just lighter. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

Carbon itself is the evidence. The theory is it is designed. There is evidence for and against. Like all other theories, they are not proven. Once more, this was a very simple example of how science makes its own case for a designer. The fact that this all has to be explained instead of it just being a easy to understand example is what I pointed out as far as your ability to grasp the concept.

[spurraider21]

Genesis is filled with a ton of really cool secrets. It was fun studying that book when I was writing a research paper on Evolutionary mechanisms. I used it as a side by side on predictors. Genesis predicting water came from inside the earth before we found out that the majority of earths water likely came from inside the earth was a cool tidbit. Genesis also spoke of sea creatures being first and then turning to land animals ala evolution always gets people on both sides in a huff n puff. Genesis was oddly accurate on topics for being written before our understanding.
Also has birds pre-dating land animals. Man not coming from other animals. All animals pooping into existence over the course of a day. Even fruits pre-dating animals. Earth before the sun. Moon and sun formed at same time. Vault separating the water above the sky.

But yeah if you squint and pick and choose you can find things that work i guess

[spurraider21]

Brother, you just keep proving my point of why it's difficult to argue with you about Carbon. You don't know enough to make a legitimate argument. Carbon isn't special because it's lighter? Okay. The entire organic chemistry course doesn't need to be taught anymore. It's just lighter. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

Carbon itself is the evidence. The theory is it is designed. There is evidence for and against. Like all other theories, they are not proven. Once more, this was a very simple example of how science makes its own case for a designer. The fact that this all has to be explained instead of it just being a easy to understand example is what I pointed out as far as your ability to grasp the concept.
What is the evidence for it being created. Can you show me a published paper making the case for it?

carbon being lighter is absolutely an instrumental reason for why it is more reactive (or more properly, produces more stabile compounds) than a similar element like silicon. The smaller atomic size makes its covalent bonds stronger. This is the case for all nonmetals. Fluorine is more reactive than chlorine, oxygen more than sulfur, etc. carbon is the smallest in its group and that also happens to be the group with exactly 4 valence electrons which makes it a gold mine for organic compounds. You are brushing off the size of the atom even though it is literally the reason it is as reactive as it is

[spurraider21]

I think I remember you saying that it "doesn't" take one point of evidence to disprove a theory.
Yes..yes it does. You can have a thousand forms of evidence to support a theory, but all it takes is one form to disprove it. That's how science works. We prove things wrong. We learn about being wrong and change it.
Great. I’ll ask again. When mercurys orbit was not following our understanding of gravitational motion did we then have to disregard the theory of gravity altogether?

[spurraider21]

My father is a lawyer. Working at his office and listening made me understand I had no future in law. But my father really likes science.

And pChem at UT involved thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics required way too much math I did not understand the fit. Thermo, the math made sense. Those courses for science people meant you wanted a BS. So at UT you were headed for BS. So you just decided to take the LSAT after graduation? That’s a radical shift imo but some people do it.

Btw the lab in organic fit so well with the lecture (even though they were separate classes).
That made it a great class. And my fine motor skills are horrible. We used ground glass kits and I think I went through a few of those.$
I was pretty 50/50 after high school about whether i wanted to go into law or the sciences. Didn’t care for med though. seeing that there are no pre-law requirements, made sense to major science anyway and have fallback of applying to law school anyway. Wound up with a lower gpa than ideal but my lsat was strong enough

Ochem lab was incredibly well designed for us too. Most of the p-Chem i remember was thermodynamics, equilibria. If i was a pure chem major as opposed to biochem I’d have to have taken more of it.

[baseline bum]

Btw, people that “know” quantum mechanics often say if you really think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.


Ah I love Feynman (that was his quote). Quantum is funny like that, you can almost convince yourself it makes sense for a while. Eg let's consider a plane wave Ψ(x,t) = N exp[i(kx - ωt)] representing a particle. By deBroglie's thesis energy is E=ℏω and momentum p=ℏk and now you have Ψ(x,t) = N exp[i(px - Et)/ℏ] so for this plane wave you get ∂Ψ/∂t = (-iE/ℏ)Ψ and ∂Ψ/∂x = (ip/ℏ)Ψ so that iℏ ∂Ψ/∂t = EΨ and -iℏ ∂Ψ/∂x = pΨ. Well shit any well-behaved wavefunction is just a superposition of plane waves (eg think the Fourier transform) so let's just promote the energy to an operator E -> iℏ ∂/∂t and the momentum to an operator p -> -iℏ ∂/∂x and say this shit works for any wavefunction.

From classical physics for a particle of mass m and subject to potential V we have E = p^2/2m + V so lets just sub in our operators and apply them to a wavefunction Ψ(x,t) to get

iℏ ∂Ψ/∂t = EΨ = (p^2/2m + V)Ψ = -(ℏ^2/2m)∂^2Ψ/∂x^2 + VΨ

Look mom I just derived Schrodinger's equation! Feynman's full of shit!

[baseline bum]

If anyone wants what I consider to be outstanding understandable reading, I have some suggestions with specific chapters or pages.

IDK any quantum books I really love but if you want a great one on special relativity I highly recommend Taylor & Wheeler's Spacetime Physics (1ed). Basically teaches the whole subject in two chapters with lots of fun problems and occasionally uses simple calculus but not too often. Only downside is it doesn't present Einstein's derivation of rest energy E=mc^2 using the doppler effect, but you can go easily read his original paper after chewing on enough problems from that book.

[SupremeGuy]

You are just repeating yourself and not explaining yourself.

as for not knowing anything about Ochem, i suppose it’s true i haven’t done anything related for a decade but as a biochem major i had to take 4 separate Ochem classes in undergrad one of which was a lab course. And you haven’t demonstrated what this evidence is for carbon being designed. Or you can refer me to a published paper which makes the case for it

carbon has four valence electrons which gives it a lot of reactive flexibility. There are plenty of other elements with 4 but carbon is just the lightest of them making those compounds more stable. Like every other element. That’s all great. That doesn’t on its own imply design.Bruh ochem labs were basically setting up the apparatus, then waiting to get your end product. I had some cool TAs so they'd let us leave and then come back. We'd usually go get drinks and smoke in the parking lot then come back. lol Good times.

[SupremeGuy]

I really don't want to get involved in the conversation but if you guys like theoretical physics, check out anything by Brian Greene.

[ChumpDumper]

Wut

Told you it was neat. I know the secret.

[spurraider21]

Bruh ochem labs were basically setting up the apparatus, then waiting to get your end product. I had some cool TAs so they'd let us leave and then come back. We'd usually go get drinks and smoke in the parking lot then come back. lol Good times.
Of course labs were less intensive

[ChumpDumper]

I am nowhere near as smart as you people, but needing an advanced chemistry degree to be able to conclude god exists these days just makes me think god is terrible at PR or got super lazy.

You used to part seas and turned chicks into salt. You changed, man.

[baseline bum]

Btw, people that “know” quantum mechanics often say if you really think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.

And it’s clearly because it does not make physical, mechanistic sense. But the math involved in doing quantum mechanics works well for right now for the tiniest of phenomena we try to understand.

If anyone wants what I consider to be outstanding understandable reading, I have some suggestions with specific chapters or pages.

On what should not be in a basketball forum. Apologies.

Speaking of quantum physics, check this awesome derivation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap7GZKCcgS8

[pgardn]

I am nowhere near as smart as you people, but needing an advanced chemistry degree to be able to conclude god exists these days just makes me think god is terrible at PR or got super lazy.

You used to part seas and turned chicks into salt. You changed, man.

I don’t know what smart even means.

All I know is that taking science classes and then keeping up is pleasing. And understanding what science is and is not, is important.
Religion and science clash usually when religion does not change its views on the universe as we know it today. The immutability of the Bible (Talmud, whatever, etc…)especially. Science, imo, will never allow us to know everything partially because of our biological makeup and inability to sense all that surrounds us and to then describe this mechanistically. We work very well in understanding using analogy and metaphors that fit into our range of sensory information. Then we rely on math. And sometimes the math makes no sense with our abilities to understand physical mechanisms we never will or can perceive.

I have repeatedly stated this but some posters, not you, deny. Modern science absolutely DOES NOT rely on the supernatural for explanation. Modern science has taken on certain subjects that we thought only had supernatural explanations because we invented techniques to measure, and even explain results mathematically. Science bypassed some of supernatural using its much more stringent methods. But only when things like the microscope, telescope, LHC were invented. (Lots more here)

I am addressing you, chumper, because when I have addressed some others directly with a quote, they continually misrepresent. And repeat these misrepresentations. The underlined is specifically for posters who insist science uses supernatural explanations. Maybe we have a different definition of supernatural. And if science does use supernatural explanations, the explanation should be, “we don’t know”.
This is not answerable using the methods of science at this time.

Sorry for going off track on your post. It seems I cannot directly give my opinion to some and have it understood so I bailed out.
And imo a limited human mind like we all have, can see the purpose of science and religion. Can compare and contrast. I believe it is a very human thing to self examine why you believe what you believe. It can be unsettling for some.

[pgardn]

Speaking of quantum physics, check this awesome derivation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap7GZKCcgS8



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0EChbwSuuQ

The first two minutes or so are incredibly insightful.

The rest goes through experiments and reasons through them.

4:00 to 5:00 incredibly important. Metaphor analogy thru experience don’t work, but math does.

Feynman is fantastic and this old stuff is the best imo.
The actual experiment starts at 9:27

[pgardn]

If you want it written out read 3.1 for the above.

I will say that the results described in 3.2 are bizzare if you read about what the light detector sees.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html


BB your uncertainty principle comes in at about 41:30 in the video and 3.2 in the written lecture

[pgardn]

I really don't want to get involved in the conversation but if you guys like theoretical physics, check out anything by Brian Greene.

Imo he would be better if he could stop with the string theory and move on. He has started to.
Also try Sean Carroll and Brian Cox. All still alive.

[pgardn]

Of course labs were less intensive

Not for me. Clumsy fingers.

[scott]

This thread reminds me of the Made From Dust days.

I specifically took physics so as not to have to deal with Bio and Chem, but I do know that "Carbon is so special we can't explain it, therefor God" is a pretty fucking stupid argument that only appeals to mouth breathers who think algebra is some kind of voodoo magic.

[scott]

Imo he would be better if he could stop with the string theory and move on. He has started to.
Also try Sean Carroll and Brian Cox. All still alive.

Brian Cox is my favorite "smart guy media personality"

I also like the YouTube content that Veritasium puts out.

[LeBowen]

we can't explain it, therefor God

This is basically the entire premise for every religion.

[SupremeGuy]

Not for me. Clumsy fingers.Dress codes... etc. Pretty sure every chemistry department has some evidence of someone who fucked up and dropped a conc acid.

You always have to respect what you're doing in any lab.

[ismael-robert]

A lot if not everything spurraider has said has said about scripture needs some background/ historical context to it. It'll take some time but the Genesis record of creation does agree with science...not sure where he gets stuff being out of order from. And pulling random verses out for shock value isn't justified when u can't explain WHY certain actions were taken. Comparing historical acts from the beginnings of man to today's sensitive society yeah you're gonna get a "how could they reaction" when it was cultural norms of that time.But in the end I dont like wasting time debating such matters because these are all just excuses for people to not have to change or submit to something bigger than themselves. The whole Bible is about Christ, theres no conflicts between old n new. I'll focus on why people won't accept Him n saying well its cause of these verses from old testament isn't it...its Your hearts. I've said it before you think you've found a contradiction or error or read a website or book from some atheist...go look same verse up on a faith based page n you'll get the true context. You can't read scripture through the flesh. It has to be read from the spirit n it will speak to you. When I met Christ I had a Paul-like experience...its like scales came off my eyes n I saw whole world differently. Yall read it with intent to criticize n redicule...not with honesty or desire to see deeper meanings.
And I'd love for yall to come check out MetaChurch on Potranco near 151. Pastor also says its a place where you can belong BEFORE you believe. He loves for unbelievers to come in and wrestle with truth. Just come as you are with your t-shirts, jeans, tennis shoes, shorts, tats, whatever we dont care. Pm me n I'll get your lunch! Our pastor has a blog on YouTube where he tackles cultures hot topics n canceled conversations

[ismael-robert]

And yeah maybe by definition you can call what I believe a religion n yall can laugh im sure u heard it before that we believe what we have is a relationship, not a religion. We have an active, living, breathing relationship with God through Christ. He loves us n we love Him. We speak to Him n He speaks back through the scriptures. Just come one Sunday what yall got to lose? Come prove us wrong!

[ismael-robert]

And yeah this ain't the place blah blah....well dont come posting offensive stuff n it won't devolve into this...yall open it then get upset when it goes this direction

[Gagnrath]

I have an idea.... Lets get the topic/thread back onto basketball. What do you guys think is more likely to help Sochan's shooting? Someone scientifically breaking down his shooting difficulties or Carter praying that his teammate stops bricking them?

[couchman]

I think we should let’s Carter Bryant settle this:
If he ever becomes NBA all defensive team and shoots above league average from 3 in the same season = there is a God who gets all the credit and glory.
If Bryant doesn’t achieve these things then he’s on his own and it’s his fault.
Deal?

[Gagnrath]

This thread reminds me of the Made From Dust days.

I specifically took physics so as not to have to deal with Bio and Chem, but I do know that "Carbon is so special we can't explain it, therefor God" is a pretty fucking stupid argument that only appeals to mouth breathers who think algebra is some kind of voodoo magic.

Once you start trying to use irrational numbers it is voodoo magic. Once something becomes irrational why would you continue to mess with it... Something doesn't make sense.