“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620357 Apr 28, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, race is an artificial classification. We all share certain alleles. You probably have more alleles in common genetically with a "black" guy in your town than you do with your wife. But, it's fun to watch you wallow in ignorance while you neglect your children, 24-7.
More ASSumptions, huh?
youtube

AOL

#620358 Apr 28, 2013
.

100% PROOF Pope Francis is ANTICHRIST_______



.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620359 Apr 28, 2013
Adam wrote:
Of course god is not dead.
True.

It would have to exist first.

Since: Sep 10

United States

#620360 Apr 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
More ASSumptions, huh?
Please, RR.

Grow up, at least a little bit.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#620361 Apr 28, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
It would have to exist first.
Well since your not gonna give ''your'' findings in the Bible as you see as flaws, i wanted to say that i respected your admittance to the Geologic time scale as being a faulty dateing method for evolution.

Have a good en.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620362 Apr 28, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>Well since your not gonna give ''your'' findings in the Bible as you see as flaws, i wanted to say that i respected your admittance to the Geologic time scale as being a faulty dateing method for evolution.

Have a good en.
Oh.

That's what GTS is.

I don't doubt them.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago.

Is that what you're talking about?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620363 Apr 28, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>Well since your not gonna give ''your'' findings in the Bible as you see as flaws, i wanted to say that i respected your admittance to the Geologic time scale as being a faulty dateing method for evolution.

Have a good en.
Here's a good starting place.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_me...

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#620364 Apr 28, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
That's what GTS is.
I don't doubt them.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago.
Is that what you're talking about?
Not really, but obviously you didnt read my post to you about it..

I had asked you if GTS was the foundation to evolution.

So does that order reflect the assumption of macro-evolution (the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor)?

Since: Sep 10

United States

#620365 Apr 28, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, but obviously you didnt read my post to you about it..
I had asked you if GTS was the foundation to evolution.
So does that order reflect the assumption of macro-evolution (the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor)?
BOOO!
Huh

Dallas, TX

#620366 Apr 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
More ASSumptions, huh?
Nope. Your presence is all that is necessary, 24-7. Your kids must be happier when your head is in the monitor. Tell them I understand.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#620367 Apr 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
And repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true, "you don't understand" is the good old atheist come back because you think that's your best defense, that a person is ignorant of whatever topic you happen to discuss.
I only tell someone that they don't understand something when it is clear that they do not.

I'm not speaking on behalf of everyone that says that to you. And repetition doesn't make it true, but there is probably a reason for the repetition. It's probably true a lot of the time. Instead of considering that a likely possibility, you created an explanation that works like a warm comforting blanket. You attribute it to some kind of atheist playbook response. It isn't.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's your opinion and you know it.
It's my opinion, which is based on logic. Logic is like math. If there is a problem with my logic, you should be able to demonstrate it.

What I have done is invalidated the Bible as a complete definition for a possible deity. The Bible is in error, whether there are gods or not. The Bible does not describe one. What it describes, it does so in contradictions.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Of course you're going to say that. You don't want to think about hell, you don't want to think about eternal torture, so you've convinced yourself that God isn't real.
Actually, to me, there is little difference between heaven and hell. But that is irrelevant. There are an infinite number of scenarios that I would want to experience, or not experience, and my preference has no bearing on my belief in the reality of those scenarios.

I don't believe in any gods because I'm a rational skeptic. There is no god claim that stands out as anything close to reasonable.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That only proves you've convinced yourself not that you're right.
I'm not the one who uses faith. That would be you.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Yeah right, like the average modern-day 12-year-old can write a book that will be the most popular book in all of history and stand the test of time like the Bible has.
Sure...
Here you have an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding.

Could you summarize why you think the Bible is so popular?
Huh

Dallas, TX

#620368 Apr 28, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, but obviously you didnt read my post to you about it..
I had asked you if GTS was the foundation to evolution.
So does that order reflect the assumption of macro-evolution (the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor)?
Geology and biology are two inter-related scientific disciplines but geology is not the foundation of biology. Fail. Try again.

You godbots ask the most ridiculous questions. Your culturally-conditioned divine master can not be proven by pretending that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life on the planet. Your classic argument from ignorance is ridiculous.
Expert in all Things

Redding, CA

#620369 Apr 28, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
do tell
who created all?
Did you want to back up the claim that was made? Or just move on?

Since: Sep 10

United States

#620370 Apr 28, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I only tell someone that they don't understand something when it is clear that they do not.
I'm not speaking on behalf of everyone that says that to you. And repetition doesn't make it true, but there is probably a reason for the repetition. It's probably true a lot of the time. Instead of considering that a likely possibility, you created an explanation that works like a warm comforting blanket. You attribute it to some kind of atheist playbook response. It isn't.
<quoted text>
It's my opinion, which is based on logic. Logic is like math. If there is a problem with my logic, you should be able to demonstrate it.
What I have done is invalidated the Bible as a complete definition for a possible deity. The Bible is in error, whether there are gods or not. The Bible does not describe one. What it describes, it does so in contradictions.
<quoted text>
Actually, to me, there is little difference between heaven and hell. But that is irrelevant. There are an infinite number of scenarios that I would want to experience, or not experience, and my preference has no bearing on my belief in the reality of those scenarios.
I don't believe in any gods because I'm a rational skeptic. There is no god claim that stands out as anything close to reasonable.
<quoted text>
I'm not the one who uses faith. That would be you.
<quoted text>
Here you have an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding.
Could you summarize why you think the Bible is so popular?
BOOO!

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#620371 Apr 28, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a good starting place.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_me...
ohh, ok.. Well here is a good place to start as well..

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cont...

http://ronyan.org/aaronk1994/aaronsblog/categ...

A popular contradiction skeptics love to exploit is one between 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25.

1 Kings 4:26:

“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.”

2 Chronicles 9:25:

“And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.”

So, which is it? Forty thousand stalls or four thousand stalls? Finally, the skeptic has found an error in the Bible! YES!

Wawawa. Another failure by the skeptic.

This “error” is nothing more than a minor error by a scribe, not a contradiction.

Many critics of Christianity express hypocrisy to the principles of textual criticism when it comes to explaining claims of error in the Biblical text. They reject all explanations involving copyist error, even though they are of the same type used by textual critics in secular studies to resolve difficulties.

We’ve already said that there is no evidence that this problem existed in the original text, do we have any evidence that it didn’t exist in the original text? Yes.

• The reading found in 2 Chronicles.
• Archaeological data indicating that 4000 would be an appropriate number of stalls for a nation the size of ancient Israel, whereas 40,000 would be very excessive.
• 4000 comports better with the number of horsemen.
• There is sufficient explanation for a change. Eric Vestrup notes that there is a reasonable probability that a scribe copied incorrectly, for “40&#8243; is spelled aleph-resh-bet-ayin-yodh-mem with “4&#8243; being spelled aleph-resh-bet-ayin-heh , the only difference being the plural “-im” ending in “40&#8243; while “4&#8243; has the singular feminine ending.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620373 Apr 28, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>Not really, but obviously you didnt read my post to you about it..

I had asked you if GTS was the foundation to evolution.

So does that order reflect the assumption of macro-evolution (the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor)?
I didn't read that post and I don't know what macro evolution is.

But yes. The evidence is overwhelming, from various lines of reasoning, that all life has a common ancestor.

I'm not really into evolution all that much. My interests are physics and cosmology, both of which support the ToE

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620374 Apr 28, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>That's what happens when you spend too much time in the comment box; the page expires. You have to copy it (control c) or type it in "Microsoft Word" and then transfer it to the comment box (copy and paste; Control c to copy and then control v to paste).
Yeah, I usually do copy my post every so often if I'm typing out a long one, but it just slipped my mind that night. I'll type it out again tonight.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620375 Apr 28, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Well you didn't clarify that. All you did was say they pop into existence. That implies 'coming from nothing'. What else should I think? Especially when you clearly aren't a scientist yourself.
So then what was your point of saying that if they indeed don't come from nothing? How does that help your position that molecules ever became aware of themselves?
I used a phrase that you yourself ackowledged as a common way to put it. I think with most people here it is safe to assume that we all know simple universal laws.

And the only point I was making was that the macro world doesn't appear to follow the same rules as the quantum world.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620376 Apr 28, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>From "nothing" aye? Well you sound pretty confident. Where's your proof? Your buddy tim already admitted that he believes they can't come from nothing (only a moron would believe something could come from nothing).
How does science define "nothing"? And more importantly, what is the mechanism by which something comes from nothing? Kinda like 'awareness from non-awareness'. Oh and what is the experimental method by which we can even determine with any certainty that we have isolated "nothing"?
It takes more faith for you to believe that BS than it does for someone to believe in "God". Yet you make fun of people tat do believe in a higher power.
I didn't "admit" anything. You act like I made a mistake and then got backed into a corner - you misunderstood me, which was partially my fault, and I clarified my statement. Anyways, I was talking specifically about virtual particles.

How exactly does it take more "faith" to believe in god than to not believe in god? That's just about the stupidest thing that creationists say. I don't have "faith" in a non created universe, I just don't have any evidence to believe in a god. Even if we knew *nothing* about how the universe/life might have started, it would still make more sense to not believe in a god, simply because there is no evidence for one. Adding a god to the equation creates a lot more problems than it solves. Where did this god come from? If he is eternal, then why can't we just cut him out of the picture and say the universe is eternal? All of the hypothetical properties you add to god to attempt to solve all the problems he creates are just cop outs.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620377 Apr 28, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>How does any of this explain how awareness can come from non-awareness?
<quoted text>Saying 'awareness came from non-awareness' is like saying magic is causing it.
No, it's like saying awareness exists, therefore in the absence of any evidence for a god, it is prudent to assume it came from non awareness.

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
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 min Porkpie Hat 271,337
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Michael 590,183
9/11&bin 14 min REV CAROL 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 21 min Epiphany2 612,187
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 32 min Mike thunkit 99,975
The Price of Oil and the Dollar 1 hr sara moor 4
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 1 hr Rinku84 93
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 hr Rosa_Winkel 4,386
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 hr Halle Berry Sister 176,947
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 13 hr Finley 31
More from around the web