Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623942 May 14, 2013
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text> "OBEs aren't real", OK, just keep telling yourself that , that's fine with me.
And yes I am asking you have you ever manipulated your surroundings while lucid dreaming.
They aren't.

My physical surroundings? No...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#623943 May 14, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
No problemo man.
<quoted text>
Like i have told many others, scientist are intelligent and a very good resource to have, they have done many great things and still do today. Im not knocking science in general. But in order for me to believe what evolutionist believe, i would have to abandon all of reality. And i just cant allow myself to do that.
<quoted text>
True, but both of mine have passed years ago. My point was as in a creation of a human being, with a soul, morals, dignity, and so on.
<quoted text>
How much do you personaly know about the GTS, and Radio- dating method?
<quoted text>
Science is.
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardi
<quoted text>
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric...
http://truthreallymatters.com/wordpress/...
Second half of your post follows. Sorry for the weird way of doing this

Word writes:“Well sir I can only answer that the sources I am giving you are from recognized experts in their fields. The research they do is internationally acknowledged and you will find that every science Institute on earth backs up what they say. Inversely the evidence you show me is falsely colored by religion, and its futile attempt to dislodge real ethical science and put myth in its place is truly evil.”

P23 writes:“Like i have told many others, scientist are intelligent and a very good resource to have, they have done many great things and still do today. I’m not knocking science in general. But in order for me to believe what evolutionist believe, i would have to abandon all of reality. And i just can’t allow myself to do that.”

Pretty interesting that we both believe we are in 'reality.'--Word

Word writes: I understand and know that creationists only knock that science that contradicts their religious dogma. So as I understand it now creationists don’t believe; DNA science, Age dating science, archaeology, paleoanthropology, and probably all of the other ‘earth’ sciences.

Word writes: Well, actually you are not a creation of some God….you are a creation of your parents, and I’m sure they love you..:-)

P23 writes: "True, but both of mine have passed years ago. My point was as in a creation of a human being, with a soul, morals, dignity, and so on."

Word writes: Sorry P23, I didn’t mean to be hurtful here….may your parents rest in peace.

Word writes:“There are no problems with the dating methodology. The only ones who contest it are creationists, and they have been unable to prove it wrong….because it IS good science.

P23 writes:“How much do you personaly know about the GTS, and Radio- dating method?”

Radiometric Age Dating is not really my field. I rely on experts in the field. But, remember what I wrote in the other post. Radiometric dating is a pretty big industry and is well respected in the science communities all over the world.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#623944 May 14, 2013
Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Why do you say such a hateful thing?? Do you know every atheist?
Greens - tuf

Sydney, Australia

#623945 May 14, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>They aren't.
My physical surroundings? No...
The reason I asked if you could manipulate your surroundings is because you should be able to do it.
A lucid dream means that you are aware that you are dreaming. You would be aware that it is only a dream and therefore you could ultimately be / do anything.
If you cannot than you are more of an observer of that "lucid" dream than actually being aware that it is only a dream.
You may be observing yourself in a dream which you have no control over.
It might be like watching yourself in a movie.
You know it's a movie , you know it's you in that movie, but you just don't know how that movie (dream) plays out.
jutfrogman

Pittsburgh, PA

#623947 May 15, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ………
This God dude is dead as any Human

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#623948 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a classic example of abnormal. Does that help?
<quoted text>
You mean try harder to freethink the same way you do? Nah, I'm good.
So, you cannot demonstrate "normal" in any living organism.
Nobody

Dallas, TX

#623949 May 15, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Why? Why would you need a lord or a master? Why do you have a master/slave relationship with an imaginary being that never manifests in reality? What benefit do you receive from such a worldview? How does it improve your quality of life? How can you live in abject fear of a culturally-conditioned belief system? Why don't you say the same about Allah? What kind of supernatural omnipotent would need the worship of mere mortals? It's ridiculous.
Because NO man can reach God on his own.
Nobody

Dallas, TX

#623950 May 15, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Why? Why would you need a lord or a master? Why do you have a master/slave relationship with an imaginary being that never manifests in reality? What benefit do you receive from such a worldview? How does it improve your quality of life? How can you live in abject fear of a culturally-conditioned belief system? Why don't you say the same about Allah? What kind of supernatural omnipotent would need the worship of mere mortals? It's ridiculous.
God does not need us, we need him if you want to live. It is not a culturally conditioned belief system. This is something the whole world could live by if they choose to. You let me know what is wrong with loving all people and forgiving all people and wanting to treat others like you want to be treated. What is wrong with that?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#623951 May 15, 2013
Nobody wrote:
<quoted text>God does not need us, we need him if you want to live. It is not a culturally conditioned belief system. This is something the whole world could live by if they choose to. You let me know what is wrong with loving all people and forgiving all people and wanting to treat others like you want to be treated. What is wrong with that?
Why would you need to worship a god to do any of those things?
Bongo

Bayport, NY

#623952 May 15, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>That's it guys. The gay agenda has failed. Nano knows that we view the next generation as potential fodder for our gay desires.
You do . You deviant inordinate phallus worshippers invaded the schools and push your agenda. It is a clever thing you morbid bastards have started getting away with.
Bongo

Bayport, NY

#623953 May 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you cannot demonstrate "normal" in any living organism.
You need "it" something fierce don't you?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#623954 May 15, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Really?
Really.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#623955 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, there are many ways to discipline kids, babies, whatever. Spanking is only one of them and I see it as a lat resort, but an option nonetheless.
<quoted text>
Bullshit!
I asked you why WOULDN'T you discipline a 6 month old.
And of course, you took the word 'discipline' and changed it to 'spank'.
<quoted text>
Yes, I condone it. I've done it. It works.
Try to understand the difference between spanking out of discipline and spanking our of anger, they are VERY different.
And....true to form- you trying to deny that you said how else would one discipline a 6 month old baby other than by spanking them?

You said it, many people commented on it horrified just as I was that anyone would even SUGGEST hitting a 6 month old baby.

YOU said that is the ONLY way a 6 month old baby can be "disciplined"- by being SPANKED.

Now you try to deny it.

Sure- YOU go ahead an explain to a 6 month old BABY that you are HITTING them to discipline them and that you are NOT HITTING them out of anger.

I'm sure a 6 month old BABY would appreciate and understand the difference, huh?

Wow. Even though I don't have children, I understand what you do not- which is all that a 6 month old baby would understand is that they are being hit for doing what comes naturally- being a BABY and CRYING.

Why wouldn't one discipline a 6 month old baby? Because there is NOTHING to discipline a 6 month old BABY about, you fool!

But no surprise that you not only condone violence, you applaud it since you have also said that killing in war is not a "sin".

Now you can try to deny you said that as well.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#623956 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, there are many ways to discipline kids, babies, whatever. Spanking is only one of them and I see it as a lat resort, but an option nonetheless.
<quoted text>
Bullshit!
I asked you why WOULDN'T you discipline a 6 month old.
And of course, you took the word 'discipline' and changed it to 'spank'.
<quoted text>
Yes, I condone it. I've done it. It works.
Try to understand the difference between spanking out of discipline and spanking our of anger, they are VERY different.
You are such a f*cking liar.

It was ME who said there are other ways to discipline children other than hitting them and you replied with saying that how else would one discipline a 6 month old BABY other than by HITTING them- and that IS what SPANKING is, RR- since a 6 month old baby can't understand what you are saying and can't be reasoned with?

Then that started a discussion about hitting BABIES to begin with- something that is truly monstrous.

"Kids, babies, whatever"??? You see no difference between a 6 month old BABY and a 6 year old CHILD?

And you think that because you spawned children that makes YOU some kind of expert when you make such moronic remarks about "disciplining" 6 month old BABIES???

RR, you are an UNFIT parent- even just trying to justify EVER hitting a BABY- even if you yourself never did- is enough for me to justifiably say that you ARE an unfit parent.

ANYONE who strikes a baby is a BULLY. And that IS what you are- a BULLY.

And FYI, here is the definition of SPANKING:

Definition of SPANK
: to strike especially on the buttocks with the open hand
— spank noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spa...

Now here is the definition of STRIKING:

strike (strk)
v. struck (strk), struck or strick·en (strkn), strik·ing, strikes
v.tr.
1.
a. To hit sharply, as with the hand, the fist, or a weapon.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strike

Spanking is STRIKING someone. Spanking is HITTING someone.

So don't think because you use the word "spank" that doesn't mean "hit" or "strike".

It does. So you condone hitting/striking/spanking 6 month old BABIES.

You're SICK.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#623957 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't make sense to think that the universe and everything in it was created 144 hours. That's ludicrous.

I know you just wanna argue and I could go on for probably months (with you) about this, but here, read.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genes...
I think it's sickening that you are trying to twist the bible to suit your own agenda.

You believe it is foolish to think what was meant is 6 literal days, but that IS what was meant so maybe you shouldn't have such faith in the bible or in the god of the bible.

"The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days

If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8,“... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years ...“. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says,“... and a thousand years as one day“. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation."

If you think about it, an infinite Creator God could have created everything in no time. Why, then, did He take as long as six days? The answer is given in Exodus 20:11. Here we find that God tells us that He deliberately took six days and rested for one as a pattern for man—this is where the seven-day week comes from. The seven-day week has no basis for existing except from Scripture. If one believes that the days of creation are long periods of time, then the week becomes meaningless.

The Bible tells us that Adam was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.

Were the days 24 hours? Most definitely!“Let God be true, but every man a liar”(Romans 3:4)."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...

Sorry for your luck, RR. According to the mere mortal men who wrote the bible, your god created EVERYTHING in just SIX LITERAL 24 hour DAYS.

That that doesn't make any sense doesn't mean that is not what is written and that that is what is meant by what was written- it IS.

Continue to wonder why the bible is often referred to as a book of fairy tales- LOL!!

Your post edited not only for space but for relevance as well.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#623958 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't make sense to think that the universe and everything in it was created 144 hours. That's ludicrous.
<quoted text>
Again, you are wrong. I don't interpret the Bible the way I see fit, I understand the Bible and what it's saying. You don't.
Here comes your Google search...
<quoted text>
Sorry, but Bob is wrong. The Hebrew word Yom has several meanings, basically it's only direct translation to English is either 12 hours, 24 hours or an undetermined amount of time. Now that third one doesn't specify what length of time, could be a second, day, or year, an eon. It all depends on the context and the structure of the sentence, specifically the words before and after. In the context of Genesis the translation would be more correct at "a period of time", not 24 hours.
I do think it's cute that you googled it and found someone that agrees with you, I really do. But it's interesting that after all the sh*t you talk about creationists, when the argument calls for it, you agree with them.
Imagine that.
I know you just wanna argue and I could go on for probably months (with you) about this, but here, read.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genes...
BTW, I think it's "cute" that you found a BLOG which agrees with YOU.

You ALWAYS cherry-pick to bible to try and get it to conform with what YOU choose to believe.

Doesn't work like that, RR.

Too bad you're not MAN enough to admit that you only believe the parts of the bible which make sense to YOU.

That's the thing with fairy tales- they NEVER make sense.

I might as well cherry-pick "Cinderella" to conform with what is possible and what is not.

Could she have lost a slipper? Sure. Could it have been made out of glass? No.

Could a pumpkin have been turned into a coach? No.

But the POINT is that the entire FAIRY TALE of "Cinderella"- while a beautiful FAIRY TALE- does not make sense.

News flash! Either does the BIBLE- a book of FAIRY TALES.

So you either believe it or you don't- YOU make no sense if you think you can PICK and CHOOSE the parts of the bible you think are literally correct while dismissing the parts of the bible you do NOT think are literally correct.

And according to the bible, the creation WAS 6 LITERAL 24 hour days.

That you find that to be ludicrous- which it most definitely is- does NOT mean the words written mean anything OTHER than 6 LITERAL 24 hour days.
henry

Germany

#623959 May 15, 2013
Tanner wrote:
Atheists are such hateful people.
Not at all. Very many of them are very intelligent

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#623960 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't make sense to think that the universe and everything in it was created 144 hours. That's ludicrous.
ours.
I do think it's cute that you googled it and found someone that agrees with you, I really do. But it's interesting that after all the sh*t you talk about creationists, when the argument calls for it, you agree with them.
Imagine that.
I know you just wanna argue and I could go on for probably months (with you) about this, but here, read.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genes...
And this:

"There is a widespread belief, even in many Christian circles, that the "days" of Genesis are not normal 24-hour days.

However, a careful study of scriptures using well accepted methods of interpretation leads us to the clear conclusion that God went out of his way to demonstrate to us that he meant for us to interpret the six "days" of creation as actual 24-hour days, with no gaps in between them.

Chapter 5 (in the most recent version of this book it's chapter 2) of the book titled The Answers Book does a good job of arguing this from a Bible interpretation perspective. There are other materials that expand on the topic even more. We wish to express our gratitude to Answers in Genesis Ministries Group (AiG) for allowing us to publish the entire chapter on our web site. We encourage all Christians to purchase a copy of the book because we have found it to be a very useful witnessing tool.

Why "Long days"?

The main reason why many try to make the days into long periods is to find a way to harmonize the creation account with the idea that there was a succession of vast geological ages before man appeared.

But if one accepts these ages as being real, then one is accepting that interpretation of the fossil record which (1) denies a world-wide flood (since such a flood would have wiped out all traces of such preceding ages), and (2) insists that there were many creatures which lived, struggled, and held out long before man appeared on the scene. This, of course, seriously undermines the whole New Testament/Gospel emphasis relating to sin, death, bloodshed, redemption, and the curse.(1)

Put simply any attempt to harmonize long geological ages will Genesis (Gap Theory, day-age theory, progressive creation, etc.) inevitably means accepting that before man, rather than the New Testament insistence that the struggle, suffering, and bloodshed of the present world came about after Adam sinned. That these attempts to compromise are artificial, and not true to the text can be seen by the following quotation from Dr. James Barr](Regius professor of Hebrew, at Oxford University).

So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew for Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience,(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to latter stages in the biblical story,(c) knows the flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark." (2)"

http://creationists.org/how-long-is-a-day-in-...

BTW, I do NOT agree with creationists; I simply pointed out that the 6 day creation in the bible IS meant to be taken literally by those who DO believe in the creation in Genesis.

That would be YOU, bub- not ME.
henry

Germany

#623961 May 15, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>It really has.
Of course, there never was any god at all!

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#623962 May 15, 2013
henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Very many of them are very intelligent
As well as loving, compassionate, giving, caring and kind.

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 If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 min MrsGladToBeMe 3,347
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 14 min HipGnosis 442,816
9/11&bin 15 min REV CAROL 1
News Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 25 min AN NFL FAN 121,636
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 27 min Epiphany2 611,845
Sex with Mom (May '12) 28 min george_m06 17
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 32 min hojo 583,982
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 10 hr WasteWater 98,969
More from around the web