Prove there's a god.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#627322 May 29, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
They stole it? From whom..and when did they steal it?
At what point this week will you be handing back the united states to the indigenous people of your country...the Falklands after all have no indigenous peoples.
I would gladly reverse time and fix the ills perpetuated by this country. Why the strawman? Are you turning Christian?

Waarom niet je domme Engels ezels uit het eiland eerste toegewezen door de Nederlandse?
Huh

Arlington, TX

#627323 May 29, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The source does not matter if the information is correct and Redneck is correct when he stated Matthew is David to Solomon (MT.1:6) and Luke through Nathan via David.(LK.3:31). So the common ground is David and they split with the two different sons. The ancients knew their history better than the moderns.
Yeah, but it is all imaginary. We're you there?
Huh

Arlington, TX

#627324 May 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, he may be correct on that one assertion, give him credit when he may be correct, it's such a rare thing.
Not even close, dude.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#627325 May 29, 2013
saidI wrote:
SaidI Wrote: Australian Aboriginals goes back at least 60,000 years. One of the stories past down through the ages is of when darkness came to the land, and plants stopped growing, children became sick, people died. Scientist agree with them as volcanic activity at that time would have blotted out the sun.
You will need scholarly sources to back up your claim. My original claim was written human history as opposed to pictures on cave walls using questionable dating methods. If homo sapians were around 100 K years then they had no written history for 95 K years and there is no mention from the ancients man somehow connected to apelike creatures. It is all modern myth with zero ancient precedent.

Judged:

12

12

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#627326 May 29, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You will need scholarly sources to back up your claim. My original claim was written human history as opposed to pictures on cave walls using questionable dating methods. If homo sapians were around 100 K years then they had no written history for 95 K years and there is no mention from the ancients man somehow connected to apelike creatures. It is all modern myth with zero ancient precedent.
Are you for real?

"Australian Aboriginal culture can claim to be the oldest continuous living culture on the planet.

Recent dating of the earliest known archaeological sites on the Australian continent - using thermo-luminescence and other modern dating techniques - have pushed back the date for Aboriginal presence in Australia to at least 40,000 years. Some of the evidence points to dates over 60,000 years old."

http://www.didjshop.com/shop1/AbCulturecart.h...

Australia's Aboriginal culture probably represents the oldest surviving culture in the world, with the use of stone tool technology and painting with red ochre pigment dating back over 60,000 years. Australians never developed an "iron age", "bronze age", or pottery, and the terms "palaeolithic" (old stone age) and "neolithic" (new stone age) are not used in Australia, because stone technology did not progress in the same way as the rest of the world.
Aboriginal men sharpening stone axes on flat rock. PH 416/43, ABC TV Collection, Northern Territory Library.

Humankind's most ancient stone tool technology, the percussion method of chipping away at the edge of a rock to make a sharp edge for cutting, dates back 2.5 million years, and was still practiced by Aborigines until the 1960s and later.

http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/introduct...

Australian Aboriginal Culture and History

Australian Aborigines existed in almost total isolation for at least 60,000 years. They had no written history so only fragments of Dreamtime stories, cave paintings and etchings remain to record their remarkable past. Only in the last few decades has a systemic investigation revealed the rich and complex culture that they possessed.

http://www.goingrank.com.au/aboriginal-austra...

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#627327 May 29, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Are you for real?
"Australian Aboriginal culture can claim to be the oldest continuous living culture on the planet.
Recent dating of the earliest known archaeological sites on the Australian continent - using thermo-luminescence and other modern dating techniques - have pushed back the date for Aboriginal presence in Australia to at least 40,000 years. Some of the evidence points to dates over 60,000 years old."
http://www.didjshop.com/shop1/AbCulturecart.h...
Australia's Aboriginal culture probably represents the oldest surviving culture in the world, with the use of stone tool technology and painting with red ochre pigment dating back over 60,000 years. Australians never developed an "iron age", "bronze age", or pottery, and the terms "palaeolithic" (old stone age) and "neolithic" (new stone age) are not used in Australia, because stone technology did not progress in the same way as the rest of the world.
Aboriginal men sharpening stone axes on flat rock. PH 416/43, ABC TV Collection, Northern Territory Library.
Humankind's most ancient stone tool technology, the percussion method of chipping away at the edge of a rock to make a sharp edge for cutting, dates back 2.5 million years, and was still practiced by Aborigines until the 1960s and later.
http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/introduct...
Australian Aboriginal Culture and History
Australian Aborigines existed in almost total isolation for at least 60,000 years. They had no written history so only fragments of Dreamtime stories, cave paintings and etchings remain to record their remarkable past. Only in the last few decades has a systemic investigation revealed the rich and complex culture that they possessed.
http://www.goingrank.com.au/aboriginal-austra...
None of that proves anything. They even admit they had no written history. What did the aboriginals evolve from? What happened to them? Do the aboriginals have any tradition of evolving from ape like creatures which went extinct? Are they fully human? Sub human? You have not proved anything and will not prove anything with nothing more than speculation and a story and a bunch of facts mixed with modern myth.

Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#627328 May 29, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You will need scholarly sources to back up your claim. My original claim was written human history as opposed to pictures on cave walls using questionable dating methods. If homo sapians were around 100 K years then they had no written history for 95 K years and there is no mention from the ancients man somehow connected to apelike creatures. It is all modern myth with zero ancient precedent.
Yes but didn't you say regarding a comment that RR wrote, he didn't need the source if it were true. My comment is true :D

Since: May 11

London, UK

#627329 May 29, 2013
nurface wrote:
<quoted text>
Bet you wouldnt say that, if you was placed in the middle of a hot zone in Afganistan..
You would be pissing yourself, and screaming for help for a soldier to come save your sorry spineless azz!!!
They would shove your pathetic words back down your throat, and tell you that they put on that uniform so "you" dont have too, and they risk their LIFE and have giving theirt LIFE and fight for the very freedom you have, to set in your cosey little home behind a computer screen, and spew your stupidity and ignorance. They allow COWARDS like you unfortunantly, to have what you have today, you ungratefull dick!
What i wouldnt give to meet you one day..........
Thank you for that scintillating analysis.

...can we have a big hand for Lieutenant-General Roderick Armchair ladies and gentlemen.

...General Armchair...the armchair general.

Since: May 11

London, UK

#627330 May 29, 2013
Semper Fi

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627331 May 29, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
well...if you took weekends off it would be an 90 post per day topix addiction...the figures don't lie.
send me your resume, maybe I can help you find gainful employment.
I dunno what your fixation with my time is, ole chap.

But if you've figured 70 posts a day, average the time it takes per post. What, a minute each? Ooooohhhhh..... That's a whopping 70 minutes a day.
Thinking Man

Brooklyn, NY

#627332 May 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't care about your god, or any of the other ones, because you have no verifiable or demonstrable evidence to support it. If you did, then that would become something science would be applied to just to know what's up with it .... still would have no benefit to knowing it does exist.
Your declaration about what science cares about is presumptive. There is plenty of evidence to support the existence of God. It's simply a matter of how we look at the evidence and the presuppositions we bring to the table with us. The nature of the available evidence is always subject to debate. Why? Because we either want to see the evidence or we don't. It's all about personal choice and the rationalizations we make to justify those choices. And while we're on the subject of science, exactly what type of science would we be looking at? Social science or hard science? Is anything that's remotely close to admitting the existence of God considered faulty and labeled as pseudo-science just because it comes close to admitting something we don't want to admit? This is the true science. The science of the mind. What do we want to admit or deny; and more importantly, why?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627333 May 29, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I am serious. Name one war since WW2 that was based on defending an oppressed people - "defending their freedom." This'll be good.
Here, read all about them:

http://www.historycentral.com/wars.html

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#627334 May 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I dunno what your fixation with my time is, ole chap.
But if you've figured 70 posts a day, average the time it takes per post. What, a minute each? Ooooohhhhh..... That's a whopping 70 minutes a day.
Cut the crap. You're saying that every single post of yours only takes one minute to think out, to word the way you want to word it and then to type it?

I call BULLSH*T.

And there is the time you spend READING posts as well, RR and the time spent on the rare occasions you actually do your OWN research and then post that and/or post the links...

Are you really trying to fool not only others- but yourself- into believing you are only on Topix for a total of 1 hour and 10 minutes each day??

What's next? Gonna try to convince others- and yourself- that there really IS a bridge for sale in Brooklyn and swampland for sale in Florida?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627335 May 29, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>RR, do you remember when I schooled you on the iraq/saddam hussein situation? Don't make me do it again.
I have this strange way of not remembering things that don't happen...

Odd, I know.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#627336 May 29, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> None of that proves anything. They even admit they had no written history. What did the aboriginals evolve from? What happened to them? Do the aboriginals have any tradition of evolving from ape like creatures which went extinct? Are they fully human? Sub human? You have not proved anything and will not prove anything with nothing more than speculation and a story and a bunch of facts mixed with modern myth.
Sorry that you're so myopic and intellectually limited that you think only WRITTEN history counts.

Nope- not at ALL speculation or a story or myth.

Wait! Maybe you were referring to the BIBLE??

If so, THEN you would be correct.

Sorry I posted to you- I won't make that mistake again- you're way too out there and way too loony tunes, pal.

Since: May 11

London, UK

#627337 May 29, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>I would gladly reverse time and fix the ills perpetuated by this country. Why the strawman? Are you turning Christian?
Waarom niet je domme Engels ezels uit het eiland eerste toegewezen door de Nederlandse?
No, it was a completely serious question. From whom do you believe that the Falkland Islanders stole their home and when?

because there are certain misconceptions I've encountered which I would seek to correct, two of them are,

"The British kicked the Argentinians off the Falkland Islands which was their home and colonised it in 1982"

and another:

"The British invaded northern Ireland in the 1970's and colonised it"

I have no idea where these stupid ideas came from but both are major errors relating to reality.

If you are anti colonial then why are you not campaigning to have the united states returned to the indigenous tribes?

I would like the UK to return the Island of Diego Garcia to its indigenous population immediately, unfortunately the US Air Force has decided that it needs the island for another 100 years...they can have it back ...eventually.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627338 May 29, 2013
saidI wrote:
<quoted text>
Why then haven't we taken out the Kim Jon"s from north Korea? How come we haven't killed off Mr. Syria. Saddam wasn't a great guy but do you think the mess we have made is better. Go ask that women who's baby is dead, if she is thankful.
Most wouldn't know where Kuwait was before the first gulf war, why would we?
It is America using those ugly weapons. Guns not good enough?
Go ask that woman? Sure, go ask her. I'm sure she's sad about losing a baby but I guarantee you she's say the freedom of herself and her other kids are worth it.

Go talk to an Iraqi citizen, I have. They cry, literally cry in joy, because they finally get to vote.

Look at how many Americans died in the revolutionary and civil wars. Then look at the positive, long-term outcome.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#627339 May 29, 2013
Thinking Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Your declaration about what science cares about is presumptive. There is plenty of evidence to support the existence of God. It's simply a matter of how we look at the evidence and the presuppositions we bring to the table with us. The nature of the available evidence is always subject to debate. Why? Because we either want to see the evidence or we don't. It's all about personal choice and the rationalizations we make to justify those choices. And while we're on the subject of science, exactly what type of science would we be looking at? Social science or hard science? Is anything that's remotely close to admitting the existence of God considered faulty and labeled as pseudo-science just because it comes close to admitting something we don't want to admit? This is the true science. The science of the mind. What do we want to admit or deny; and more importantly, why?
Good post. Tried to provide positive judgments but some jerks are finding a way to vote multiple times on this site IMO. Lying is no big deal to atheists who often come on sites like this as pretend Christians and print things like all homosexuals should be killed etc.

Judged:

13

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#627340 May 29, 2013
Thinking Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Your declaration about what science cares about is presumptive. There is plenty of evidence to support the existence of God. It's simply a matter of how we look at the evidence and the presuppositions we bring to the table with us. The nature of the available evidence is always subject to debate. Why? Because we either want to see the evidence or we don't. It's all about personal choice and the rationalizations we make to justify those choices. And while we're on the subject of science, exactly what type of science would we be looking at? Social science or hard science? Is anything that's remotely close to admitting the existence of God considered faulty and labeled as pseudo-science just because it comes close to admitting something we don't want to admit? This is the true science. The science of the mind. What do we want to admit or deny; and more importantly, why?
The science of creationism is usually considered dishonest because a hypothesis is formed before data is collected, then when it is, data is collected that supports the hypothesis, while contradictory data is discarded.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627341 May 29, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>So, you can't prove your positive claims. Check. Of course it means something, nitwit. It counters your ridiculous, unprovable claim that he got all his Biblical knowledge from "Atheist Websites". You're not very bright. Your god fugged you over. Brains? I thought you said trains.
Well what the hell are we supposed to believe when an atheist posts done ignorant bullshit about the bible and quotes straight from nobeliefs.com ?

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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
Play "end of the word" part 2 8 min andet1987 1,722
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min LAWEST100 641,487
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 41 min Wolfs Song 104,655
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Ooogah Boogah 38,067
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr true observation 618,384
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr janeebee 18,689
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr onemale 280,875
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 4 hr Johnny 4,096
More from around the web