Prove there's a god.
Gary

Buffalo, NY

#638209 Jul 8, 2013
Hi Who:

No, not really, when one has saving faith his true desire is to do the will of God in His word. When God saves one He gives him a brand new resurrected Spirit that is born from above that is from God this is why the true believer will walk in the fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5:22-23. There are many fakes out there this is for sure. However, God is real and some day we will all find out. Ever hear the old saying, better to pay now then pay later? This is the time to seek God with all your heart because time goes by like a vapor the word declare now you see him now you don't. We all have to deal with the Lord either when we are alive or on judgment day whatever comes first. Again, thank you for your input. Gary
Whos yo daddy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you're saying is that your god demands faith from every one so he can go ahead and please himself.
Rather strange, I say!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#638210 Jul 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to get under the sheets with Catcher?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.....
Hmmm...I'll get a camera.
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#638211 Jul 8, 2013
undercontrolgh wrote:
Arent there any sensible atheist out there? Please if your out there say something. Your people need some help.
Anti-theists have the intelligence, common sense and courage to reject and oppose all dogma-based indoctrination systems.

Unfortunately, you lack the capacity to become a deconverted former Muslim godbot and need professional help.

You're making a complete ass of yourself on international forum, kid.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#638212 Jul 8, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
Hidingfromyou is only a 16 year old girl, trying to convince herself that she is a man!
She is a butch lesbian freak!
Woohooo! I was so very worried you'd think I was 14!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638213 Jul 8, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
First, that site isn't directly from scientists. Second, it's largely accurate. I would go further - we can say a lot more about their lives than you have described in that one paragraph. That's just the tip.
Third, you're being entirely dishonest here. This is your previous claim:
<quoted text>
Notice you have included the words "entire existence" and then I respond with "no arky would ever make that claim" - the claim being that we can describe their "entire existence."
Yes, we can absolutely know, with certainty, part of the neanderthal diet, how they hunting, where they got their material goods from, how they made them, how large their groups were, what their population size was, a fair chunk of both their mtDNA and nuclear DNA, seasonal habits, clothing, lifespan, gestation period, many religious ceremonies (including the ones named above - burying their dead, putting flowers on their dead) and so on.
We'll never know how they experienced, or if they enjoyed sunsets or played word games, etc. But the other stuff - how they carried out feeding themselves? That's easy.
And, yes, we absolutely know with certainty that they treated their injured. Do we subsequently "know" they therefore emotionally cared for their injured? No. But it's hard to imagine a group of social animals, somewhat similar to us, feeding the aged and infirm out of a lack of kindness.
The thing is, RR, you quite clearly don't know the first thing about how archaeology works, so your critique here is meaningless. It would be one thing if you actually knew where to critique - and, don't get me wrong, there are good critiques for some archaeology (I'm currently writing one myself). But it's like the plumber came to your house, found the problem, and you said "no, that's not it, because my walls are fine." The thing is, you're not even talking about the pipes.
From the freakin Smithsonian:

"Rethinking Neanderthals
Research suggests the so-called brutes fashioned tools, buried their dead, maybe cared for the sick and even conversed. But why, if they were so smart, did they disappear?
By Joe Alper "

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/...

Are they not scientific enough for you?

Notice that they say the evidence "suggests" blah blah blah. They don't say the evidence "proves" blah blah blah.

They admit its speculation. I'm sorry that you can't.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638214 Jul 8, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the pinnacle of all that is honest and good in our society. You can trust me in all things.
But...

Erm.

Uh...

You can't hold a beer in your Asian cleavage...

:p

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#638215 Jul 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
A writer/author IS a scholar, yes?
No. He was a journalist. Not peer reviewed, not a scientist. God, just look Hitchens up online and stop backpedaling.

Actually, watch him - he was a brilliant orator:

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#638216 Jul 8, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Potassium-argon (K-Ar) has probably the widest range.
According to McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 11) the following assumptions must be true for computed dates to be accepted as representing the true age of the rock[4]

The parent nuclide, 40K, decays at a rate independent of its physical state and is not affected by differences in pressure or temperature. This is a well founded major assumption, common to all dating methods based on radioactive decay. Although changes in the electron capture partial decay constant for 40K possibly may occur at high pressures, theoretical calculations indicate that for pressures experienced within a body of the size of the Earth the effects are negligibly small.[1]
The 40K/39K ratio in nature is constant so the 40K is rarely measured directly, but is assumed to be 0.0117% of the total potassium. Unless some other process is active at the time of cooling, this is a very good assumption for terrestrial samples.[5]
The radiogenic argon measured in a sample was produced by in situ decay of 40K in the interval since the rock crystallized or was recrystallized. Violations of this assumption are not uncommon. Well-known examples of incorporation of extraneous 40Ar include chilled glassy deep-sea basalts that have not completely outgassed preexisting 40Ar*,[6] and the physical contamination of a magma by inclusion of older xenolitic material. The Ar–Ar dating method was developed to measure the presence of extraneous argon.
Great care is needed to avoid contamination of samples by absorption of nonradiogenic 40Ar from the atmosphere. The equation may be corrected by subtracting from the 40Armeasured value the amount present in the air where 40Ar is 295.5 times more plentiful than 36Ar. 40Ardecayed = 40Armeasured &#8722; 295.5 × 36Armeasured.
The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated. Thus, there should have been no loss or gain of 40K or 40Ar*, other than by radioactive decay of 40K. Departures from this assumption are quite common, particularly in areas of complex geological history, but such departures can provide useful information that is of value in elucidating thermal histories. A deficiency of 40Ar in a sample of a known age can indicate a full or partial melt in the thermal history of the area. Reliability in the dating of a geological feature is increased by sampling disparate areas which have been subjected to slightly different thermal histories.[7]
Both flame photometry and mass spectrometry are destructive tests, so particular care is needed to ensure that the aliquots used are truly representative of the sample. Ar–Ar dating is a similar technique which compares isotopic ratios from the same portion of the sample to avoid this problem.

Shew...that's a lot of assumptions...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638217 Jul 8, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It would alter my belief system substantially. Given that I'm an atheist, I'd say that evidence that Adam and Eve existed - say we found Eden - would threaten my belief system, absolutely. But so what? I'd have to change. If my beliefs are incompatible with the universe, then I am no longer capable of producing accurate science - I'd have to search for different answers.
At the point where a creator-deity was discovered, I'd have to dramatically realign my non-created view of the universe and biology to a created one. Currently, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, so the reality of that would suggest the Creator is deceptive and enjoys scientists doing the wrong thing. Or that the Creator is not all-powerful and a trickster/liar deity co-exists with It.
That's sort of like me asking you "So, if the Mayan gods turned out to exist, and your deity was some kind of devil or something, would that change your belief system?"
The answer can only be "yes" followed by "uh, that would be awkward."
I totally appreciate your honesty. I think you're the first (or at least one of few) atheists here that will admit to having beliefs.

You have RR's respect.

You want lettuce on that sammich?

Since: Sep 08

Ordway, CO

#638218 Jul 8, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
A theist has been brainwashed to mindlessly adhere to a dogma based indoctrination system.
An anti-theist is opposed to all dogma based indoctrination systems.
Anti-theism is the ONLY rational and humane position to hold in regards to religious brainwashing.
That's what they told you, huh?
Gary

Buffalo, NY

#638219 Jul 8, 2013
Hi who:

Yes, the world is based on literal evidence. However, this is where the HUGE difference is, the word of God and the Bible is based on a spiritual book this is why one must be born spiritually to truly understand the word of God. I understand it is impossible to figure this out in our own intellect this is why God must step in to give one spiritual life and that can only happen if God saves one by His word and His Spirit. A good place to start is by reading the word. Thank you. Gary
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's sort of how evidence based understandings work.
<quoted text>
Oh. So he's fictional then? With a bunch of caveats from the religious to mask that? I see, thanks.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#638220 Jul 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Woah there. The basis of the story of Adam & Eve is that God created life.
All the evidence of our contemporary science tells us that life cannot create itself.
First, false. Contemporary science strongly suggests life comes from non-life. All our scientists work in the absence of any divine being. Not a single scientific theory incorporates deities, strongly suggesting that no deities are needed - and they predict that life comes from non-life.

Second, the Genesis story in the Bible is entirely wrong. It has all kinds of inaccuracies about the order in which species arose and claims that bats are birds, etc. If you're resting your belief in Adam and Eve on Genesis...
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#638221 Jul 8, 2013
Gary wrote:
God is real and some day we will all find out.
No, he's not! In all probability, you'll never accept this irrefutable fact before you die and simply waste your entire pathetic life as a willing slave to ignorance, intolerance and violence inciting Dark Ages dogma.

http://articles.exchristian.net/2002/10/becom...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638222 Jul 8, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:

No. That's not what I said. Your religious mind sure warps my writing.
Maybe it's the ice cold...

...water.
Hitchens is not a scientist. He is not peer reviewed. I wrote this. Apparently you missed it. I'm working with shorter sentences. And only one subject per sentence. Perhaps that will help your comprehension.
I said Hitchens was a scholar, not a scientist.
I wrote that scientists make mistakes. Outside their discipline. I never wrote they couldn't be trusted. That's you adding words to me. Please don't do that.
Yes, you did. You said that when Dawkins is talking evolution he's out of his realm and shouldn't be trusted as a good source for that.
Trust the consensus of scientists within a single discipline. Or don't, if you have enough training or understanding. Oops, I broke the simple sentence rule.
O_o

Trust them.

Or don't.

WTF?!?
Importantly, don't make stupid proclamations when you entirely lack knowledge.
Aw, yer too kind.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#638223 Jul 8, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Why?
Are you going to bring up some arcane creationist paper to try and refute it?
No, I just have my doubts about the dating the methods...a lot of assumptions must be made when dating that far back...But if I did bring up some creationists research that made valid points...would you be against arguing it? Or would that be to much to ask?
Rush

Nebraska City, NE

#638224 Jul 8, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
PROVE I AM GAY!
BTW YOU ARE VERY EFFEMINATE RUSH! YOU ARE A PLAIN MAN!
Your name says it all! Everyone thinks you are gay, and I do to now. Nothing wrong with that, just be yourself.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638225 Jul 8, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Cool.
Get it?
No, not yet. It's shipped but they gave me like a 2 week window. It should be this week or next.
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#638226 Jul 8, 2013
Bullshit signed in wrote:
Shew...that's a lot of assumptions...
100% wrong!

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/radiodte.htm

"None of the creationists has ever explained why, if all of the radio-dating methods are so unreliable, hundreds of different samples tested by hundreds of different laboratories all over the world, using a variety of different radio-dating methods, have all agreed on the same date for the age of the earth--approximately 4.5 billion years."
Rush

Nebraska City, NE

#638227 Jul 8, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Woohooo! I was so very worried you'd think I was 14!
ROTFLMAO! Good one!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638228 Jul 8, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll assume you're joking.
Yessir.

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min PadMark 687,291
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 14 min Aura Mytha 31,084
the REAL reasons O.J. Simpson beat murder charges 46 min Johnny 25
My "thorn in the flesh" God won't fix....this s... 1 hr Satan 5
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Hang em high 286,561
Whose fault was it that O.J. Simpson beat murde... (Mar '16) 1 hr Johnny 49
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 2 hr Johnny 179
More from around the web