Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments (Page 488)

Showing posts 9,741 - 9,760 of11,219
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10235
Jan 4, 2013
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes scientists to expose fake scientists.
Such a shame your religion doesn't keep its own house in order so effectively.
Wait a moment, my mistake - it does.
No less a person than KJV says that they (he didn't say who "they" were) correct the Bible every time a new document is found.
Wait a moment...
KJV also said that the Bible was perfect.
Care to help your friend out here? How can something that's perfect be corrected whenever new documents are found?
I will say that "new" documents aren't found. However, we know that new findings have produced original old documents heretofore undiscovered which I can only speculate contributes to the changes KJV referred to.

Be accurate and honest when in your heart you know the intent of the post, even if it wasn't stated to your satisfaction, just as you have sometimes stated things about Noah that came out differently than you may have intended. We don't want to nit pick - it's not prodctive, is it? LOL

However, when you are commenting on another poster, I again need to remind you that you should address your concerns with that poster, not me.

Just like I've told you before, if you have concerns about the content of posted links, you need to address them with the publishers, not me.

If you and I are going to remain the great friends we always have been, I will ask you to cooperate with me on this, and I will thank you for your usual fine cooperation.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10236
Jan 4, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont know how KJV can account for the fossil record. Maybe Yahweh put those fossils in the ground to deliberate mislead us :)
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scien...
"Contrary to popular belief, the dating of fossils is very subjective and arbitrary. Sometimes fossil dating is really a circular reasoning:
The ages of rocks are used to date fossils
The ages of fossils are used to date rocks.
Here is a quote from a peer reviewed science journal saying just that:
“The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.”(O’Rourke, J.E.,“Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53)(emphasis mine)
When a date is assigned to a fossil, it is also very important to pick the “correct” date. There are dates that are already accepted by evolutionists, and the date of a new fossil has to fit so as to not disrupt what has already been decided."
http://x-evolutionist.com/the-fossil-record-e...
endogenous retroviruses do not rely on the fossil record and they also prove evolution is a fact. There are 29 different ways to prove evolution is a fact.

Your God ... not so much.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10237
Jan 4, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it really is an established fact!! http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christi...
I've already addressed your post and moved on. This will not be addressed again. There are many inaccuracies stated on various links. Thank you for attempting to clarify.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10238
Jan 4, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Observation is what our experience on this world is all about. I pointed out facts supportable by evidence from your own buy bull. Then I extrapolated inescapable conclusion from those facts.
Your God is a fraud!! Deal with it!!
I'm so sorry that you're angry over your misinterpretation of the Bible.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10239
Jan 4, 2013
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity has a habit of getting into bed with whoever is in power.
I had never thought of it quite that way. Is China powered by Christians?

I guess atheism isn't going to grow much in the United States since no atheist will be in power here - not for many years, at least.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10240
Jan 4, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
The majority of people used to think the earth was flat. The best rise to the top and usually they are few and sadly there are many naive people fearing a delusion called god.
<quoted text>
Thank you for letting us know what was on your mind today.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10241
Jan 4, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Quantum physics goes way beyond what can be seen.
Quantum Mechanics fails as a theory.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10242
Jan 4, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
Post a comment of your own and they will condemn you for not having enough credentials. Quote an expert and you're a spammer.
Oh and then they will post that the article is false. Like they're the expert. LOL.
Right.

Post something good about science, and they'll love it without question. Post something negative, no matter what the source, and they do one of 2 things: no answer, or they dig and scratch to find fault. If they can't find fault, they manufacture something irrelevant to post. I think there's an atheist school they all go to that teaches them phony tactics like that

LOL
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10243
Jan 4, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Quantum physics goes way beyond what can be seen.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10244
Jan 4, 2013
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm so sorry that you're angry over your misinterpretation of the Bible.
You have yet to point out anything in my proof that was not correct.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10245
Jan 4, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting, they must all be great at masking their IPs then.
Why is that?

Why I'm all of these :

Derek4
Lanolairs
3 more but I can't remember
Right know who they are.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10246
Jan 4, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
You've been told about the "Grand Unification Problem" about a half dozen different ways that I know of, probably a lot more.

What you are doing is known as the "God of the Gaps". If Science can not currently explain it, then "God dunnit!!"

This was stupid in the Dark Ages when we didn't understand what caused the Black Plague. Now we do, and it was not "God's wrath".

The "God of the Gaps" gets smaller with every scientific discovery.

You are worshiping a shrinking god that you cannot even prove exists.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10247
Jan 4, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>You've been told about the "Grand Unification Problem" about a half dozen different ways that I know of, probably a lot more.

What you are doing is known as the "God of the Gaps". If Science can not currently explain it, then "God dunnit!!"

This was stupid in the Dark Ages when we didn't understand what caused the Black Plague. Now we do, and it was not "God's wrath".

The "God of the Gaps" gets smaller with every scientific discovery.

You are worshiping a shrinking god that you cannot even prove exists.
No not at all. You see I understand your believe against all odds in spontaneous life, where nothing exploded and created everything. Gaps and falsified science to fill in the gaps and failed test.
I choose to believe in the Bible where 2000 prophecy have been fulfilled and the History of the Bible keeps getting proven right with each new city unearthed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10248
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. The math is correct.
The odds against the big three (The Big Bang, Spontaneous Life, Evolution)
vs the odds that the 2000 prophecy that have come true all from one book (The Bible).
Please show the details of the calculation of these odds. Given that evolution almost inevitably follows from life, the independence of those two is known to be wrong. Next, the question of spontaneous life from the Big bang is essentially a question of initial parameters and we don't know how to calculate the probability of those parameters (or even if such a probability makes sense). Finally, from the known equations of physics, a Big Bang of some sort is inevitable (a universe expanding from a hot dense state).
Look at those two sets of numbers.
The odds that the big 3 are correct and evolution has brought us all the way up to today.
Give that this is what happened (based on the evidence), the probability is 1. A priori probabilities, however, may differ.
And the odds of those prophecies around 2000 all listed in one book all fulfilled to date leavening less then 500 prophecies that for tell the end time.
According to math it's no contest.
The Bible wins hands down.
Except, of course, that the latter didn't happen. The 'prophesies' are either trivial (a kingdom will rise and wage war), self-fullfilling ( a man will ride through Jerusalem on a donkey), or were made *after* the events prophesied (all of the specific ones). So your probability is zero and mine is almost one.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10249
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Please show the details of the calculation of these odds. Given that evolution almost inevitably follows from life, the independence of those two is known to be wrong. Next, the question of spontaneous life from the Big bang is essentially a question of initial parameters and we don't know how to calculate the probability of those parameters (or even if such a probability makes sense). Finally, from the known equations of physics, a Big Bang of some sort is inevitable (a universe expanding from a hot dense state).

[QUOTE]Look at those two sets of numbers.
The odds that the big 3 are correct and evolution has brought us all the way up to today."

Give that this is what happened (based on the evidence), the probability is 1. A priori probabilities, however, may differ.

[QUOTE]And the odds of those prophecies around 2000 all listed in one book all fulfilled to date leavening less then 500 prophecies that for tell the end time.
According to math it's no contest.
The Bible wins hands down. "

Except, of course, that the latter didn't happen. The 'prophesies' are either trivial (a kingdom will rise and wage war), self-fullfilling ( a man will ride through Jerusalem on a donkey), or were made *after* the events prophesied (all of the specific ones). So your probability is zero and mine is almost one.
Not going thru that every time someone wants to dispute the numbers. I have posted the numbers many times and no doubt I will again. But you really have no interest in the honest truth about these odds you're simply looking for a battle trying to shoot hole in the calculations.

Sense there is No proof of the Big Bang or spontaneous life or macro evolution.
Start with the odds of nothing exploding and creating everything we see today and billions of things we have not see or may never see.

Ok nothing is what we are all starting with. Take your ZERO and turn it into a for sure thing. You can't, I can't, math can't. Only God can. It really is that simple. But if you like, search the earlier postings by me or just google it and you'll see the odd of your way of creation.

Now take a book that has 2500 Prophesies in it an start with prophesies number 1 coming true then take that and the odds of prophesies number 2 coming true. Now what are the odds that the same book predicted 2 prophesies and both came true to a tee.
Then keep adding the odds up until you have completed about 2000 prophesies calculations compounded. All from one book.

What you wind up with is basically Zero chance if the Big Bang etc. creating what we have now to day.

And a very high probability of the Bible being accurate.

But that's just mathematics not science.

Have a nice day.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10250
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not going thru that every time someone wants to dispute the numbers. I have posted the numbers many times and no doubt I will again. But you really have no interest in the honest truth about these odds you're simply looking for a battle trying to shoot hole in the calculations....
And you apparently don't understand the first thing about probability theory.

Probability theory deals with populations of things. Given that out of a population of 1 universe we have observed exactly 1 universe which has life, the odds of a universe having life is 1/1, which = 100%.

And this same math holds true for any number of your supposed probabilities. Which is why statements about "odds" are ridiculous.

Without a population, probability theory is just so much smoke and mirrors designed to entertain the simple minded.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10251
Jan 4, 2013
 
I was just pointing out the flaw in your bandwagon logical fallacy argument. Point goes to me seeing as how you had no response. Easy enough.

Ok now all the theists are running scared from this question let's see if you can do any better.

Why should anyone accept god as anything other than the product of someone's vivid imagination?
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for letting us know what was on your mind today.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10252
Jan 4, 2013
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think all fossils have been creditable, you haven't even read much on science.
Besides, you're a fossil, and we all know you're flawed, lol.
Ad hom, you dodged the question completely. Nice to see you never change.

Oh, and never changing is always a bad thing.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10253
Jan 4, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
I was just pointing out the flaw in your bandwagon logical fallacy argument. Point goes to me seeing as how you had no response. Easy enough.
Ok now all the theists are running scared from this question let's see if you can do any better.
Why should anyone accept god as anything other than the product of someone's vivid imagination?
<quoted text>
Read Alma Chapter 30 posted here: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30.44...

Let me know what you think. When I read this thread, I get the impression that its all summed up in this chapter.(Alma Chapter 30 records the conversation between an atheist and a theist in the Americas some time before the birth of Christ.)

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10254
Jan 4, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No not at all. You see I understand your believe against all odds in spontaneous life, where nothing exploded and created everything. Gaps and falsified science to fill in the gaps and failed test.
I choose to believe in the Bible where 2000 prophecy have been fulfilled and the History of the Bible keeps getting proven right with each new city unearthed.
Again, show these "prophecies" that occurred after the fact, with actual evidence of them and not just assertions, also not including the forced one that people made happen simply because they wanted to justify it. You keep claiming these exist, yet you never provide more than "it says here" ... which is nothing more than an assertion.

As to your first point, no, we're here, life had to come from non-life somehow. Science looks for a way it could have happened, you ignore the entire situation with a non-answer. Most of us would rather have an answer than ignore it using a non-answer as a shield from the facts.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 9,741 - 9,760 of11,219
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••