Prove there's a god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#763938 Jul 31, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
<quoted text> The oldest known text of the ancient Sumerians are Meticulous also but thought Mythology, BS, In other words..
All three of which you are o/side of your Posse..
What?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#763939 Jul 31, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm sorry, but i choose to believe Christ, NOT anticrister flaming gaytheist fascist retards, but thanks and have a grand day!:-)
I'm sorry, but I choose to believe actual reality, not Christian bullsh!t, but thanks and have a grand day my friend.

:o)

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#763940 Jul 31, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked a Muslim friend about the 72 virgin thing. He said it's overrated. He's holding out for 3 sexually deprived housewives and 72 cases of condoms.
That sounds a lot more real. Ha

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#763941 Jul 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>What?
Now, about this posse of yours; why was I not invited and where is my bandanna?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#763943 Jul 31, 2014
you gonna wear it around your leg or head?

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#763944 Jul 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I see then in the reverse roles: Dave is Pinky and Buck is the brains of the outfit.
Dave is so stupid that he makes me angry at the laws of physics, chemistry and biology for allowing his existence.
I never took physics or chemistry so they are talking over my head most of the time, so I can`t tell when they are being stupid or if they make any sense at all. I don't have the education to tell cause its mostly formulas I have no way of working out, so I usually keep my mouth shut unless they bring up a subject I do know and can tell whether it is truth or a lie.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#763945 Jul 31, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
what scientific reports and hard data are we talking about? there are NONE that dis-prove anything that i believe. i.e., PUT UP OR SHUT UP!:-)
You just said it. NONE would convince you if I had the scientist that did the research tell it to you himself. Why would we waste our time with you ?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#763946 Jul 31, 2014
Lab28 wrote:
Y'know, I know I said the last one was my final post but I made the mistake of looking in... I am discouraged by what I see.
I'm going to set the bible aside for this one, but there's no stopping the spirit burning inside me. I'm going to go off of the idea of subjective reality.
I found this to be dangerous thinking. That all of reality is only relative. That our frame of reference is only based on past and present relationship to the world around us. But let's indulge that concept for a minute.
Etymology for relative early 15c., "having reference," from Middle French relatif and directly from Late Latin relativus (see relative (n.)). Meaning "compared to each other" is from 1590s; that of "depending on a relationship to something else" is from 1610s.
Our relationship to our world determines our reality. Therefore, in the midst of this divisiveness and hatred what kind of reality do I want to live in?
For me, love isn't an indulgence. It isn't a strong emotional persuasion. It isn't a feeling I get. It is actually something I've been commanded to live out. It is a tone that I am obliged to pound into my heart on a daily basis.
What do you think being given such a tall order has done to my subjective reality? What do you think believing the idea that it is possible to love every person on this planet has done to my worldview? Would you believe that it's a bad thing. That it's just a lie I tell myself? That some people don't deserve love or that I should be allowed to pick and choose who I will be indifferent to, who I will hate, who I will love?
I'd like to also add the plagiarized idea that if I knew everything that there is to know, every mystery of this world, but I didn't love; that knowledge would be useless. That if I inherited everything and was given all authority over all of humanity, but didn't know what love was, I would be in misery. That if I was the wealthiest man in the world, but didn't love, I would be worse off than someone in poverty.
For the Christians in this thread you know this commandment and I'd like to promote the idea that it is the most important of them all, far above all the wedge issue garbage you like to argue about.
And for the atheists I'd like you to just consider the possibility of this commandment, and using it in a secular way in order to change your own brain chemistry to a more pleasant reality.
I don't want to get into a huge debate over moral relativism or presuppositional apologetics, but I will say that probably any person in this thread knows this is accurate, whether or not their pride allows it. That being said, carry on, you have always been free to hate.
But you have been set free so that you can love.
"Love" as I know it is an emotional connection requiring a distinct target. One might be able to love all of humanity in a generic sense, but it's not the same as the love one feels for someone they know personally. If you equate the two, you cheapen the personal connection considerably.

What I feel for all humans is not love. It's kinship. It's based on empathy. I can feel it for other kinds of animals too, especially when I can relate to them in some way.

Do you want to live in a world where other thinking agents empathize with you? Allowing this faculty to guide you will contribute to creating such a world. That's reason enough.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#763947 Jul 31, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Stop repeating yourself and just pony up the evidence for your claim.
You're not the boss of me!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#763948 Jul 31, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
"I got news for you. Humans did not ''evolve'' from ape like creatures. Apes have always been apes and humans have always been humans."
How would you explain that most people on earth have some percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood in their body? Being related to Neanderthals opens us up to being the modern ancestors of other genus 'Homo's' such as Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis, Homo-heidelbergensis, etc., etc. that roamed the earth for a few million years. Modern humans were noted in the archaeological world as first existing around 200,000 years ago.
These are observable, testable facts....in other words real and true, not a result of lies and mistruths such as Christians, especially fundamentalists, are known for.
http://www.the-scientist.com/...

Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#763949 Jul 31, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
you gonna wear it around your leg or head?
I'll work my way into it.

Round the world,....:)>

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#763950 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.the-scientist.com/...
Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.
Twilight zone?
ROCCO

Indio, CA

#763951 Jul 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Congrats.
I have a five year anniversary as well: five years of retirement and expatriation. I closed my office July 31, 2009 and left the States a week later.
Thanks, Ain't.

May you have many more decades of fulfillment in your personal happiness.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#763952 Jul 31, 2014
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/deve...

Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

Maybe, but what’s really interesting to some of us is that finding soft dinosaur tissue doesn’t seem nearly as important at I09 as the question of Armitage’s religious beliefs. Just think of the long-running questions the find, if it holds up, would settle.

A paper on the subject was published in Elsevier peer-reviewed science journal, Acta Histochemica (Latin for “Cell Chemistry News”):

Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#763953 Jul 31, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
Are you saying if I find a non believing couple that abused their kid, it's all on atheism?
No.
What a dumb argument from a person that claims to be an academic.
You claim to be an academic? Really?

You know what that makes me do?
LOL
That's exactly right. It makes me LOL.
http://latest.com/2014/06/arizona-couple-star...

This lovely couple were not Christians, they are just like you.
LOL, again.

They weren't humanists either, just like you.

Christians have this to guide them:

Proverbs 13:24

"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#763954 Jul 31, 2014
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellectual-f...

If you knew anything Dr. Meyers, about the microscopy of osteocytes – living osteocytes –(and we are not talking about epithelial cells) you would know that delicate ultrastructure – and I am talking fine filipodia approaching 500nm in width, decay WITHIN DAYS of the death of an organism. We microscopists have to use quick acting preservatives and process bone tissues immediately ON ICE to preserve the kinds of structures you can see on the Triceratops osteocytes in my paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

The reason we creationists are very excited about this work – the reason you and Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer are backpedalling FAST on this issue now is because EVERYBODY knows this kind of ultrastructural preservation is MIRACULOUS. Osteocytes do not sit around with these kinds of structures for 10,000 years – let alone 68 million years.

Secondly – you should resist the temptation to comment about things you have not done your homework on. Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself because Mary Schweitzer showed in her 2013 paper that these osteocytes contain HISTONES inside their nucleoli. This is direct evidence that there is MIRACULOUS preservation of autogenous molecules inside these bones – and in my case, inside a highly vascular, mud embedded Triceratops horn (not a deeply buried heavily encased limb bone).

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#763955 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
http://www.uncommondescent.com /evolution/developing-story-yo ung-earth-creationist-microsco pist-fired-in-wake-of-finding- soft-tissue-from-dinosaurs-sue s/
Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”
Maybe, but what’s really interesting to some of us is that finding soft dinosaur tissue doesn’t seem nearly as important at I09 as the question of Armitage’s religious beliefs. Just think of the long-running questions the find, if it holds up, would settle.
A paper on the subject was published in Elsevier peer-reviewed science journal, Acta Histochemica (Latin for “Cell Chemistry News”):
Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus
Did you learn that from el-stypidia? Or from dumb and dumber?

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#763956 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The article itself is just news. It is why you post it. To smear Christians. If you had such a strong case, if you were so moral you would not have to resort to name calling.
I would say the Schatz Christians smeared themselves.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#763957 Jul 31, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Genesis? In your wet dreams. Jesus is wrong and your interpretation of science is correct? I will go with Jesus.
http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg601/sca...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763958 Jul 31, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Then they are not True Satanists ™
hahaha!

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min Doctor Jekyl 71,048
Blacks need to be deported NOW! (Oct '10) 23 min Johnny 157
Leroy Willams and Mary 1 hr theyruthwillsetyo... 1
i need a man to get me pregnant no strings atta... (Dec '12) 1 hr Carlo 73
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 2 hr ImFree2Choose 3,044
News Reason to cringe: Female voters react to Trump 2 hr Go Blue Forever 254
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 2 hr Classic 3,858
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 2 hr Johnny 5,053
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr Michael 658,873
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr onemale 283,003
More from around the web