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 499)

Showing posts 9,961 - 9,980 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10483
Jan 6, 2013
 
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Amen brother!
Thank you sir.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10484
Jan 6, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>You have made up evidence. This is not the same as real evidence.
I have made up evidence and then some how got all these other scientist find it and publish papers on it. Damn I'm good!
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10485
Jan 6, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>The ancestor to the chicken, just one or two mutations short of being a chicken, now extinct, had this same protein.

The chicken egg came before the chicken. Deal with it.
"The ancestor to the chicken, just one or two mutations short of being a chicken, now extinct, had this same protein."

Where is your link?
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10486
Jan 6, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>That "prophecy" was forcibly fulfilled, also called "self fulfilling" prophecies because believers who wanted it fulfilled made it so. It would be the same as "prophesying" that I will be eating pizza sometime in the future.
What?
You're really going there?
Derek she is definitely a none of the first church atheist.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10487
Jan 6, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Where is it? We keep asking, you never provide, you evade and dodge or outright ignore the request. Until you present evidence then you are the liar, not me.
Sorry "none" I'm too lazy to go and repost all that stuff. So it ain't happening
If it would change anything I might waste my time, but you're to far of a lost cause. It's all on these threads if you like or you can study and use the web to find it all.

KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10488
Jan 6, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Demonstrate how what I really said was a lie.
"the chemicals required for the formations of protocells, the ones that can become life according to our understanding of it, are consumed by modern life forms. Thus, the chemicals themselves are consumed before forming any protocells. "

Your claim here is no new life can form because all the chemicals required for life are being eaten before they can form more life. What a crock!
There are tons of that stuff out there not getting eaten. And how about all the lab experiments were nothing is around to eat the chemical. PURE BS. KK

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10489
Jan 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Well lets see he dropped out 40 years ago Started collage around 20 years old. So this 60 year old non educated man who spends his life on threads like this is trying to show off that he blew it and should have stayed in school.
I get it.
Wow, you really are quick to make judgments about people with little to no information. How very Christian of you!

I changed majors from theology to business management, had a whole career in IT management, retired in my mid-40s. Lived out in the country on a little horse ranch for about 12 year breeding and training Paso Finos. Retired from ranching last year and now live in a highrise in Atlanta.

As you should have noticed, I'n not on these threads too much during the week. Yes, I'm retired (for the 2nd time) and about 60, but I stay pretty busy volunteering with various civic efforts in the city.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10490
Jan 6, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>We'll all be dead long before there is any catastrophe, with the exception of a possible meteor collision but those we can only predict out a few days in advance.

The other changes are not catastrophic. The Earth's poles shift all the time, it "wobbles," as someone else described quite aptly, a few years ago they feared it may flip because the "wobble" had been slightly more than usual ... it was a false alarm but meh, having to recalibrate "North" on everything wouldn't be that huge a deal.

You can't face facts, the only "normal" in the universe, the only constant that is not mathematical, the only thing that remains the same is change, everything changes, and the strong things change with the universe. Anything that does not change fails every time.
You said not changing is a bad thing

As far as mankind is concerned that list I gave you is a list of things that better not change much or we'll be in for it.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10491
Jan 6, 2013
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Aplogetics.

Strange how you have no problem believing the Bible when it says that creation took 6 days but you refuse to believe the Bible when it gives a ratio of 3:1 for Pi.

I always said that you guys just make it all up as you go along.

Looks like I'm right.

Now, where are these corrected Bibles that you say exist?
Are you back on Pi?

You must be too stupid to understand
A proper explanation.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10492
Jan 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"the chemicals required for the formations of protocells, the ones that can become life according to our understanding of it, are consumed by modern life forms. Thus, the chemicals themselves are consumed before forming any protocells. "
Your claim here is no new life can form because all the chemicals required for life are being eaten before they can form more life. What a crock!
There are tons of that stuff out there not getting eaten. And how about all the lab experiments were nothing is around to eat the chemical. PURE BS. KK
You have a bad habit of "interpreting" everything. I did not say what you are asserting I said. Reread it, and read it again, and again, until you get it right.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10493
Jan 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
Already this shows an incredible lack of understanding of the Big Bang model. It does NOT describe an explosion where matter is thrown outward from some center. It never has. Instead, it portrays an expansion of space itself with the matter and energy being carried along by the expansion of space.
(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case."
https://m.christiancourier.com/articles/133-t...
This is very badly out of date. The anisotropies predicted by the Big bang theory were found in 1992. Since that time, they have been extensively studied and have confirmed and elucidated the Big Bang theory. In particular, the details of these anisotropies are consistent with the Big bang theory with cosmic inflation, with the recent WMAP data allowing predictions of the higher peaks in the anisotropies which were confirmed by ground-based observations. In particular, the amounts of dark energy, dark matter, baryonic matter, and energy from light *all* affect the positions of the peaks in the anisotropies and form a collection of data that is very unlikely to be consistent with any theory, but *are* consistent with the Big Bang.

My recommendation is to get your information from someone who knows cosmology and is not using out of date information.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10494
Jan 6, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?
Scientific American astronomy editor George Musser explains.
This question really has two parts. First, how was matter able to get out of the big-bang singularity? After all, physicists describe a black hole singularity as a pit into which material flows but from which it cannot escape. Let us leave aside the fact that singularities are an idealization. The basic point is that the universe was born with a tendency to expand, which overcame the tendency of matter to collapse. According to relativity theory, space does not like to remain static; for all but the most special cases, it either expands or contracts. But why it initially chose the former is still a mystery.
In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see.(A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)
The second part of the question is: Why didn¿t matter in the early universe collapse into black holes? After all, physicists say that if you squeeze matter to a high enough density, it will collapse into a black hole, and the density of matter in the early universe was extremely high. The answer is that black-hole formation actually depends on the variation in density from one place to another--and there was very little variation back then. Matter was spread out almost perfectly smoothly.
In fact, cosmologists usually turn the question around. The fact that the universe did not recollapse into a swarm of black holes is evidence that sharp density variations did not exist (or were extremely rare). This lack of sharp variations, in turn, is evidence for the inflationary model that most cosmologists today accept."
Very good. The evidence we see supports the Big bang model with an inflationary phase.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10495
Jan 6, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
"Robert J. Nemiroff, assistant professor of physics at Michigan Technological University, responds.
First of all, it is not really known whether or not the universe started from a singularity. Our measurements can take us back only so far; ideas about the nature of the cosmos at the start of the big bang are mostly unproved conjecture.
Second of all, the concept of a black hole is only one type of solution to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, our best current theory of gravity. This reading of general relativity--known as the Schwarzschild solution--is thought to give an accurate description of the gravity near an isolated, nonrotating black hole, as well as the 'normal' gravity near the earth and throughout our solar system.
But other solutions to general relativity are known to exist, including ones that apply to a whole universe. These alternative solutions typically assume that the early universe was perfectly uniform so that there were no places for black holes to form, even if the density were so great that particles were "cheek by jowl." The most popular class of general relativity solutions applying to the entire cosmos are known as Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions. These formulations appear to describe correctly our expanding universe; that is, they demonstrate how objects not held together by local forces (such as the electromagnetism that bonds atoms in molecules or the gravity that keeps the earth intact) stream away from one another in a predictable manner.
Still, there is room in the theories for some of the matter in the universe to be hidden in black holes that might have formed from local, unusually dense regions in the very early universe. These black holes could conceivably contribute to the large amount of dark matter that exists in the universe. Astronomers are therefore diligently searching for these objects. In one scenario discussed by Jeremiah Ostriker of Princeton University and his collaborators, black holes as massive as one million times the mass of our sun might be common throughout the universe and still be nearly invisible. Although other black holes might come out of some big bang models involving quantum mechanics, a common expectation by cosmologists is that only elementary particles survived these early epochs of our universe."
Again, you support the evidence for the Big Bang theory. Thanks again.

Black holes have been found. Most galaxies have a supermassive black hole at their core. There are also smaller ones produced from supernova explosions. The speculation that black holes provide a substantial part of the Dark matter has been shown wrong, however. There are limits to the amount of baryonic matter as a fraction of the total amount of matter (ordinary plus dark) and a large number of black holes would violate these observations.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10496
Jan 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>Are you back on Pi?

You must be too stupid to understand
A proper explanation.
Or you're to stupid to give one.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10497
Jan 6, 2013
 
Any way you could do that again but in English this time? Sorry kjv your dyslexia is showing again. Oh wait! Dyslexia is contagious and you caught it from kjv from working together for 35 years right?

Lmfao!
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how your the expect on sick sex
Bobby was a lot like that too. You should hook up with Bobby.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10498
Jan 6, 2013
 
Boy that's a long winded way way of saying you're stumped.

Again and maybe finally a theist can muster an answer. Why should anyone accept god as anything other than a product of someone's imagination.

Btw why should anyone care about what the bible says?
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going ballistic?
It sounds like it to me.
Well, bless your heart. Some days are like that, I guess.
I sometimes skip your posts, sometimes skim them, but they never have any gems of wisdom, so I don't even remember what question you're writing about, lol.
I notice your worried about people obeying Biblical commands, so when are you going to start obeying them?
And what verse in the Bible tells me I have to answer every post on topix, lol?
I could simply post Bible verses and never answer any post. That would be interesting.
Do you realize that I have a life outside of this forum? I don't have the time nor inclination to read every single post.
I don't ask everyone to read all my posts, nor do I care if they do or they don't. They can read them or skip them, it's no skin off my rump, lol.
In fact, I am completely skipping pages 498 - 499 tonight, and however many posts are on page 500 so far, simply because I don't care to cover that much material just because it's there.
Got that?
Good.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10499
Jan 6, 2013
 
Oh the bible myth has been rewritten more than a Spider-Man vs Venom story. For example the Jesus forgives the adulterous woman story doesn't show up in anywhere until the year 1100. It's that new.

And that is merely one of many changes the bible has went through hell even the King James Version of the bible changed erased and rewrote words, sentences even entire passages so it would better fit in with the Church of England's teachings.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the new documents which you continue failing to identify?
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10500
Jan 7, 2013
 
Why?
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie down on the floor and scream.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10501
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Dawkins, unlike Stalin, never went to priest school.
derek4 wrote:
Richard Dawkins is much like Stalin.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10502
Jan 7, 2013
 
Wrong.

The chicken egg came first from a not-quite-a-chicken.
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis tells us that the chicken came first. More scientific proof backing up the bible.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 9,961 - 9,980 of11,195
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••