Prove there's a god.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#639480 Jul 10, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>xD
We both know that you are no girl.
We all know that she is Kitten Kodder and River Tam.

Duh.

Now...What are you?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#639481 Jul 10, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
In the account of Jesus being resurrected, how many
1) women
2) angels
were present at his tomb?
Oh...Oh.....pick me.:-)

Depends on which________you read....right?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#639482 Jul 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Cain's wife was his sister.
I know what you're going to say, but you're mistaken. According to the bible they were pure humans, so incest was not an issue.
Of course. Just like the spooky light source, the greenhouse, the force field and the plasma generator that kept humans warm. Why should we apply science to the Genesis account? I mean, God can poof things into and out of existence and leave no evidence, right?

Silly us

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#639483 Jul 10, 2013
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww hell nano...... I didn't need to hear that.....
Just the thought of ........ Never mind.... Blech...!!
I had never heard that about Mengele... What a sick bastard!
He did a lot of sick things to Jews and other people he thought didn't deserve to procreate. He tried using radiation as a means to sterilize them and ended up finding out that radiation actually killed cancers as well as created other cancers. It is horrifically ironic that something as constructive as radiation oncology originated from his hellish sterility experiments.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#639484 Jul 10, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the expert.
fk off, creep

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#639485 Jul 10, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
Great job!!
You sets em up and I knocks em down

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#639486 Jul 10, 2013
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Great! Don't mind me. I'm just relaxing after taking a boatload of pain meds. Feeling a bit goofy :)
You too?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#639487 Jul 10, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
OVERRULED!!!
If all Historians are required to provide eye witness accounts...then we must throw out pretty much everything we know from the past.
Yep.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#639488 Jul 10, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing moderate about seeing the virtue of cutting off limbs and heads in a public square.
There is nothing extreme or 'leftist' about insisting that human rights are inviolable.
You perceive moderate as being weak, mellowed, watered down, soft handed. To me, that's not necessarily what moderation is about. To me, moderation is about balance.

I think chopping off limbs and heads for repeated offenders, career criminals, may be a good idea. On its own it is indeed an extreme notion, so it thus has to be balanced. If a government is considering these extreme measures, then it also has to put an extreme effort into ensuring its countrys youth and general citizens are not put in a position where they have to turn to crime.

I believe in the death penalty, but certainly don't believe it'll work in South Africa. Our government doesn't do enough to ensure equal quality education, entrepreneurship and good employment opportunities, so it has no has no right to punish criminals with the death penalty.

If you want an extreme law, you have to provide an extreme service to balance it.

It is an extreme leftist view that all humans rights are inviolable. You are putting humans above principle, above ethics, above standards of civilization, above consequence. This is a key extreme leftist characteristic. Make the humans like sacred gods.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#639489 Jul 11, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
OVERRULED!!!
If all Historians are required to provide eye witness accounts...then we must throw out pretty much everything we know from the past.
That might be true if there weren't half a dozen god stories that are somewhat similar , 2 more that are closely similar and another
2 that are very very similar.

Attis of Phrygia

Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.

An Attis cult began around 1250 BC.

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/attis.html

Dionysus

Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,”“Redeemer,”“Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

Horus

Would This Bother You?
There are many atheists who claim that Jesus never really lived. What if I told you that there was once an ancient religion which described God as a being who:


Conceived by a virgin mother named Meri, and had a stepfather named Seb (Joseph)
Was born in a cave, his birth announced by an angel, heralded by a star and attended by shepherds
Attended a special rite of passage at the age of twelve and there is no data on the child
from the age of 12 to 30
Was baptized in a river at the age of 30, and his baptizer was later beheaded
Had 12 disciples
Performed miracles, exorcized demons, raised someone from the dead, walked on water
Was called “Iusa”, the “ever-becoming son” and the “Holy Child”
Delivered a “Sermon on the Mount”, and his followers recounted his sayings
Was transfigured on the Mount
Was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and was resurrected
Called “Way”,“the Truth the Light”,“Messiah”,“God’s Anointed Son”,“Son of Man”,“Good Shepherd”,“Lamb of God”,“Word made flesh”,“Word of Truth”,“the KRST” or “Anointed One”
Was “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish, Lamb and Lion.
Came to fulfill the Law, and was supposed to reign one thousand years.

These do kind of take the umph out the the story being they all are historically older than Jesus story.
So it isn't overruled.

Objection SUSTAINED!

I C&P these stories so I didn't write them , not that they are the works that be plagiarized.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#639490 Jul 11, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> No hug for Dave? After all he is the smartest guy in the room.
Errr...well, Bongo, if that makes you happy, well done.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#639491 Jul 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That's the messed up part of the buy bull, people don't understand.
It's a racist thing. god created the Jews starting with Adam.
The Goyim existed , but they didn't count them. They didn't even consider them.
Ah, I see. Thank you.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#639492 Jul 11, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I guess you didn't notice the words "could have"?
Their experiment did not prove my comment wrong, only that they are still guessing themselves how life started here. That experiment did not accurately depict the amount of heat and energy that existed during the Heavy Bombardment epoch.
I told you before how the blocks could assemble themselves is a mystery, but this is compelling evidence, if you consider
it has been found how all of these could have started left handed spin, and stick the Miller Urey experiment in you have a plausible
hypothesis for abiogenesis.

Oh and yes it did depict the same conditions of the heavy bombardment , as it was exactly the reason it was done, to test if life could survive it. However we already know it did
though, but until the discovery of extremophiles it wasn't taken seriously. I think you are afraid it might be true nano.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#639493 Jul 11, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I know how how a lot of things work...doesn't mean they are of great significance to me...so long as they work. And at no time did I claim that ONLY my opinion matters.
how did I come to my opinion...let's see...let me give you an example...
http://www.sciencecodex.com/meteorites_are_ri...
I read this article and believe me, most like it, regarding the issue, contain the same basic words and/or phrases that almost always give rise to my skepticism immediately...."Scientist s believe",, "there is a gap in knowledge about how life came into being."...I mean it's the same ole song and dance...having blocks without something or someone to assemble them...seems pretty impossible. No wait...according to current evidence, it is impossible...because we find the basic building blocks for life in an assortment of things that never produce life...Like the soil...air.
Then there's this article...http://beforeitsnews .com/space/2013/06/martian-met eorite-contains-key-building-b lock-of-early-life-2461266.htm l
“In early life RNA is thought to have been the informational precursor to DNA.” THOUGHT being the key word here.
There was no previous evidence of borate enriched clays on the early Earth’s surface, but finding them on Mars implies that they could have been present"...COULD HAVE BEEN...key phrase. FINDING THEM ON MARS...another key phrase. Really...we're the offspring of clay from Mars...No...just...no.
Am I capable of evaluating chemistry and microbiology? Yes.. I am capable...by all means not an expert...and probably would struggle...but I'm very capable.
Don't get me wrong...I commend their efforts, but I'm still skeptical. Scientific critiques aren't necessary. I have a mind of my own and there is absolutely nothing wrong with forming an opinion. Additionally, at no time did I or would I use "vehement force" and state that I am religious and cannot accept information outside of my religion?
Ok. Well, first, that's how scientists talk. We don't use absolutes because our research is disprovable. The moment you use absolutes is the moment you make yourself vulnerable to attack - and to being wrong.

Second, you have selective focus. In the first of your passages, you paid special attention to the beginning of the sentence, but not its end.

"The research team believes that the presence of amino acids in these meteorites provides clear evidence that the early solar system was richer in life&#146;s raw materials than previously thought and that these materials may have helped to kick-start life on this planet."

They key word here is not "believes" but "provides clear evidence..."

If you are going to read science, you have to understand how scientists talk. We don't deal in absolutes, we deal in disprovable, testable things. So, yes, their research could be disproved - hence you can't say "we know for 100% certainty X" except in some, usually general, cases.

For example, we know with 100% certainty that physical processes produce novel genes and that the additive effect of these produces new species. But we most certainly don't know exactly how the process of biological change occurs (except, perhaps, in a very limited set of genes).

You are entirely right in being skeptical. However, I have great issues with people who make authoritative pronouncements on matters scientific as if they have great knowledge and in-depth understandings of entire scientific disciplines. Because, if they don't, while they may make claims like "there's no way abiogenesis occured" the reality is they don't know enough of the scientific disciplines in question to make that pronouncement. You're certainly welcome to say "I don't believe it's possible" or "I don't believe science can demonstrate that" etc - but here, you see, I am speaking as a scientist and not a lay person.

And that's probably the basis for our misunderstanding.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#639494 Jul 11, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I don't believe we can scientifically prove life can arise from non-living matter.
A perfectly fair statement.

The thing is, science can only test materialist claims. And the only testable, disprovable materialist claim we have for the origin of life is from abiogenesis.

So, what you're really saying is that contemporary science is incapable of explaining where life ultimately came from, in your opinion.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#639495 Jul 11, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
You said, "No scientist cares what creationists think about their science." I'll stand corrected, if you aren't referring to anyone who believes in God as a creationist...but I can only assume you are. With that said, your statement said to me..."No scientist cares what (anyone who believes in God)thinks about their science." At that point, you invalidated the work of many disciplines..as there are many who believe in God who work in the other disciplines I mentioned.
Sorry, I'm specifically talking about young earth creationists who deny evolution and believe the entire universe is 6000 years old, give or take.

No, not a single evolutionary theorist would consider what these people write credible science.

But, as I've written many times, most scientists in The USA are Christian - probably a majority of them believe that the universe was Created. They just don't believe in the literal word of the Bible. And I'm sure many of these people produce excellent science.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#639496 Jul 11, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
Because if you think a physicist isn't intelligent enough to debate a theory, just because it isn't he/she's field of expertise...you apparently have never been to school. Most physicist have a great deal of knowledge in other biological and chemistry foelds.
No physicist is capable of debating me in my field of expertise. Don't be ridiculous. They simply aren't trained in my field, cannot keep up with the latest research papers and do not contribute to to the discipline. A "great deal of knowledge" is not practicing as a professional in a particular specialty.

It's like you're claiming a GP can debate with a heart surgeon on the finer points of heart surgery.

And thanks for attacking me yet again with "you apparently have never been to school..." Not only are you making yourself sound deeply insecure, you're baring your ignorance of how science works - again.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#639497 Jul 11, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
I just posted your statements and how I perceived them...what did I make up? Lol...and yelling? Where'd you get that from?
<quoted text>
Not in the post I responded to...which said...
<quoted text>
No, you didn't post what I wrote. Yes, you took it the wrong way. There's a reason I capitalize "Creationist." It denotes the young earth type.

You come across as angry because you include insults in your posts to me, with exclamation points.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#639498 Jul 11, 2013
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Hiding, I love you too!
Though you give me too much credit. I still have bruises from our last encounter. I didn't know you could move like that and so quickly.
I'll be better prepared next time. You can count on it ;)
15 years of training.

:p

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#639499 Jul 11, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
15 years of training.
:p
Really?

I have 18 years of training.

The first two was just the poop thing and not chewing on the plants.

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 confrinting with ... 650,440
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 6 min ChristineM 445,931
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 10 min Buck Crick 56,096
Incest Lesbian Pedo Sex Snapchat (Oct '14) 20 min Heibdjcbf 3
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 33 min Steve III 44,970
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 38 min bad bob 182,948
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 39 min andet1987 2,338
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 8 hr Brian_G 37
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 9 hr kobechi3 71
More from around the web