“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#572171 Dec 11, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Dinosaurs?!
Where is bacteria in the bible?
Dumb ass.....
It's not a biology book.
RIIIIGHT...

It's a book of mythology.

You tell'em, Ar Ar.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#572174 Dec 11, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
All that meaningfulness means nothing WHEN the certain scale of space and time is ended.
Your life is meaninglessly meaningful. I get it.
By the way, in light of scientific fact that you provided, all that meaning you speak of is pure philosophy and "pipe dreaming".
Science proves/supports my claim that your existence is meaningless, eventually futile.
Science itself agrees with me that your existence is meaningless.
The light from a candle is not meaningless because the candle is eventually blown out.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#572175 Dec 11, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets begin by asking: how did you arrive at this conclusion?
By what line of logic or method of research or experimentation?
It is certainly not a scientifically valid expression; because science cannot be built on a negative argument.
Not at all sure why you would think that. I can think of several 'negative arguments' that are very important in science. For example, that the different types of perpetual motion machines are impossible. That violation of any number of conservation laws is impossible. That global decrease of entropy is impossible.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572176 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
It's hard to say how much reality is in the Jesus stories. There was definitely no supernaturalism: nobody born to a virgin, nobody following stars to mangers, nobody performing miracles, and nobody resurrected from the dead.
Was there an itinerant holy man named Jesus? Probably. Probably several.
Was there a Jesus of Nazareth? Probably not, Nazareth doesn't seem to have existed when it was needed. And we know that there was no census in Bethlehem when it was needed to support the story.
My guess is that there was no Jesus - that the character was purely a composite based on earlier mythological traditions.
<quoted text>
No, not necessarily. But his relevance will plummet.
I notice that you doctored my quote: "What race of gods; the race of the god/gods that you dont believe in"...

Thats not fair; but science is not about fairness so I dont expect scientific thinkers to have much equity in thought or action.

You would love to hear that there is no evidence of a historical Jesus; but thats your fatal flaw.

The historical existence of Jesus is confessed even by people who should have been more interested to see his memory wiped out of the earth. Even those who should have preferred to see the memory of him wiped out reported about him.

That stunt was tried by one evolution theory advocate who had to apologize for it.

At the point: 9:30

&fe ature=related

You are a liar and the product of liars.

You dont even understand what is meant by the expression "there is no need for God". That term relates to the idea that it is not necessary to involve God in studying the universe; but the absence of a need to involve God in the investigation does not mean He was not involved in the creation.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572178 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The light from a candle is not meaningless because the candle is eventually blown out.
But when all the world that the candle is in will dissolve into non-existence; the world, the light, the candle and even the person who lighted it are meaningless.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572179 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all sure why you would think that. I can think of several 'negative arguments' that are very important in science. For example, that the different types of perpetual motion machines are impossible. That violation of any number of conservation laws is impossible. That global decrease of entropy is impossible.
The moment you can build a science on a negative argument; you have open the floodgates for all kinds of entities.

If you open the floodgates of valid negative arguments; you'll be up to your neck in mythical creatures by tomorrow. Good luck!

“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

just better than yesterday

#572180 Dec 11, 2012
Laconic Assassins wrote:
<quoted text>You're not qualified to do anything except kiss butt. Oh yeah, you just did. <pucker up> ~~smile~~
You hurt my feelings you big, mean evil brute.
Perhaps tact rather than knuckle dragging might help improve your civility.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#572181 Dec 11, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the Tripoli thing?
That was a negatiation & ass kissing tactic to not go to war with Muslim pirates.
It was intended to let them know that America will not have a Holy War - a war casued by and for a religion.
Nothing more.
Except that we're not a christian nation.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572183 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's start by defining science.
Will you agree science is a process?
The process begins with a hypothesis, it can be a positive or negative, or lack of positive.
A scientific fact can in fact be a negative. Such as an absolute such as the speed of light. No matter what arbitrary numbers you use to describe it, it is still a definable absolute number.
One could therefore prove the speed of light by showing it is not every other possibility. You can hold every negative position and show a positive.
The negative is a description of the positive.

The accurate description of a thing as "NOT white" is not possible until one is able to say "IT IS" some other colour.

Furthermore, no negative fact can be tested except by evaluating the positive and then it is actually the positive that is tested. So science as it involves testability is based on the positive.

SO all that talking says nothing.

It merely demonstrates your will to dispose of even the fundamental principles of science in order to prove your meaningless point.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#572185 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all sure why you would think that. I can think of several 'negative arguments' that are very important in science. For example, that the different types of perpetual motion machines are impossible. That violation of any number of conservation laws is impossible. That global decrease of entropy is impossible.
I did see one somewhere that has been going for several years. It was really neat. I'll see if I can find it again.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#572186 Dec 11, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all sure why you would think that. I can think of several 'negative arguments' that are very important in science. For example, that the different types of perpetual motion machines are impossible. That violation of any number of conservation laws is impossible. That global decrease of entropy is impossible.
Here it is:

God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572188 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
He is using the typical religious view that science is not a process of discovery.
Science is an attempt to understand. To define the universe.
Religion is a small minded view that we already know how it all works..... Magic
Actually that's YOUR idea of religion. Not everyone believes in magic. I don't.

You are simply trying to impose your stupidity on others; spreading propaganda in the process.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#572189 Dec 11, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tlx2PgESXhsXX
OK. Days. It will go for several days.

It's not perpetual, but this thing is pretty clever. Maybe up to 99% efficient.

Still, his hopes to DRAW energy from it is fantasy. It would need better than 100% efficiency.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572191 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the exact point..... We are having a discussion about a mythical creature.
No, no. YOU are having a discussion about a mythical creature. The impression you get of God is that He is a Mythical creature.

I dont share your views regarding God, so technically we are not discussing the same thing. That which is God to you is not the same as that which is God to me.

Why cant you people see that the thing which you are referring to as mythical and magical and supernatural IS NOT what other people hold to be God.

People may describe God using those terms (mythical and magical and supernatural etc), but those terms may also be applied to the description of ice cream and massages and food.

Get it through your skull:

YOUR IMPRESSION OF GOD IS FORMED FROM FAIRY TALES; SOME PEOPLE GET THEIR IMPRESSIONS OF GOD FROM EXPERIENCE.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572194 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. So you start by saying a negative is only a description, it's defined only by a positive.....
Then one could never present the negative with out first proving the positive. But you can't prove the positive exists with out a negative.
It's a dead end argument......
Is it?

So is science based on a dead argument? After all it is scientific principle that a science cannot be based on a negative.

I know that negative and positive support each other. Its you that must justify the sudden and radical change in your thought on a principle that is fundamental to science.

By the way, did you reach your conclusion of "dead argument" by way of consensus or is it just your subjective (more accurately "subjected") observation?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#572200 Dec 11, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I didn't mind the nude shots on the video effects. The instrumental parts I couldn't listen to very long. The voice is not bad, but the style of music doesn't attract me that much. If I had a choice between that and rap, then I would pick that. Rap I wouldn't listen, to as much of it isn't music anyway, but just some guy/girl, who can't sing, speaking words and a lot of noise in the background.
Now what do you think of Ken Curtis, Festus from Gunsmoke, and star of Ripcord - replaced Frank Sinatra on Tommy Dorsey for a few years? Try actor Ned Beatty. So far you haven't recognized any of those names, right, and the tv shows were before you were born.
Roger Whittaker, Gordon Lightfoot *, Anne Murray, Johnny Cash, Jim Reeves, Stompin Tom Connors *, Hank Williams Sr, some Elvis Presley, some Beatles, Charley Pride *, Harry Belafonte *, John McDermott *(saw him in concert with Nana Mouskouri), 3 Tenors (one now dead), Strauss, Mozart, and most of the other old classical but not opera.
* I have seen in concert.
Jim Reeves would be my overall favorite of the above.
Two other world famous Canadians, Celine Dion - like some of hers; Shania Twain (probably haven't heard much of her but she is cute. My brother lived with her 1st cousin for a few years, and I think met her a at a relative's funeral)
Now one of the biggest music stars today, who was raised in a town not far from where I lived for a number of years, and I have been there many times, is Justin Bieber, but I haven't heard his singing, and probably would not be interested in it.
I am definitely not 'with it', right?
I was to a Rolling Stones concert in 2005, which was phenomenal, but I would not likely have gone across the street to see them otherwise, but my spouse at the time wanted to go, and they put on an amazing show with great effects. I think mainly what capture me was the two old guys who have abused themselves all their lives could still put on a show, and Mick Jagger never stopped running across the stage for the entire performance.
lol!

Nah, I don't understand rap either.

Who is justin Bieber? lol. Only 12 year old girls have a crush on that dummy. Back in my day, john trovolta was a real man!! hehehehe, look at the God walking, there is no man that can ever beat him, not even christian bale!!! He is the hottest thing i've ever seen!!!



I do recognise some of those names, I'm an old fashioned British girl. My papa is 'white' even though he has brown skin. He was born and brought up in England, until he married my mummy he couldn't even speak his own language. I was a daddy's girl and me and my papa used to watch old westerns starring john wayne etc...

I used to love watching musicals with gene kelly in them, omg, he taught me that newspapers can be fun if you dance on them! lol. His dancing can always make ya smile!!:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

My papa wasn't a big fan of Rolling Stones, so that's why i'm not either. We love the Bee Gees and songs like, this is a man's world....
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572201 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't the basic tenant of religion god made everything so he is the reason for everything.
If god exists science would prove it. Science is a search for the answer, if the answer is god; that's the answer.
All "science" says is prove it. How is that propaganda. I will concede your point if you are correct and can factually prove it.
You listen to your Sunday school teacher to much. Science is not evil or anti-god. Use YOUR mind instead of regurgitating what you hear on Sundays.
No. Science does not say "prove it". Science PROVIDES a method/s of proving whatever you want.

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." [wikipedia.com]

It is you that are spreading propaganda by claiming that people believe in all kinds of foolishness such as myths when they mention God.

I am the one seeking justification for what I believe by reasoning, even without making reference to religious text; while you are repeating what you are taught in your schools. Yet you accuse me of regurgitating? You must be a fool.

At what point have I said that science is in itself evil or anti-god?

It is you that are evil and anti-god; science provides methods that can be used effectively in investigating the existence of God.

Stop projecting your stupidity onto others. You search yourself for the most absurd ideas then claim that it is other people who espouse them. You are an ass-hole.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#572203 Dec 11, 2012
Somali Pirate wrote:
<quoted text>
So how do you define your god?
God is true...[JESU(S)]
HickUp

North Augusta, SC

#572204 Dec 11, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
You demonstrate illiteracy.
Have you not read the analogies I used?
I am trying to say that what you see or how you perceive is relative to your position, and more often than not, your disposition also.
I am saying that whatever can do all things, will be whatever you want it to be. While God is that which is Omnipotent, He has all potentials that one attributes to Him; good, bad, ugly, creative, destructive...
Can you reason?
Can you exercise critical thinking?
Does the fact that electrons only appear as particles when they are observed (please refer to double slit experiment) mean they are anything you decide they are or imagine them to be?
OK, I got it now. God is an electron. That explains at least some of his interactions with the physical world. Hopefully someone will come up with a way to detect electrons or maybe even harness them for a usefull purpose.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#572206 Dec 11, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
lol!
Nah, I don't understand rap either.
Who is justin Bieber? lol. Only 12 year old girls have a crush on that dummy. Back in my day, john trovolta was a real man!! hehehehe, look at the God walking, there is no man that can ever beat him, not even christian bale!!! He is the hottest thing i've ever seen!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =V1e5h9YSe_kXX
I do recognise some of those names, I'm an old fashioned British girl. My papa is 'white' even though he has brown skin. He was born and brought up in England, until he married my mummy he couldn't even speak his own language. I was a daddy's girl and me and my papa used to watch old westerns starring john wayne etc...
I used to love watching musicals with gene kelly in them, omg, he taught me that newspapers can be fun if you dance on them! lol. His dancing can always make ya smile!!:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
My papa wasn't a big fan of Rolling Stones, so that's why i'm not either. We love the Bee Gees and songs like, this is a man's world....
Did you hear about Travolta sexually accosting his male masseuses?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min June VanDerMark 574,092
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 min onemale 268,892
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 23 min Kait the Rotund F... 442,090
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 31 min Qu_innocence 608,207
How to get Free Steam games, Steam Wallet codes... (Dec '13) 36 min alex 92
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 38 min RiccardoFire 39,610
Should we adopt the paleo diet? 38 min diettips 3
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 5 hr coco 204
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 15 hr yes lover 162
More from around the web