100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
Again, evidence is only as relevant or convincing as one allows it to be. It is still nevertheless a choice to see the bible as being false. precisely and there's no evidence that i see as relevant or convincing in the bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Christ without Christianity
|
|
Perhaps. Therefore your evidence is not convincing. It is not enough. Even to the people who think they discovered something that "may" be the temple or castle of King David, they don't know for sure. Even they are not convinced, so why should I be convinced? Also, too many scholars and historians disagree with them. With so much controversy, I cannot be convinced unless it is something I really want to believe. I only want the truth. That is why I want evidence. I weigh the evidence on both sides. Your evidence is not enough to outweigh the lack of evidence. If King David was so important there would be an unquestionable amount of outside evidence. There is not. Jeanie the only absolute bottom line without a doubt fact in life is if you drop something, it will fall. That is the ONLY absolute fact that could not possibly be wrong. If I am mistaken here, please share another absolute fact that could not be false. None of that even applies to the meaning of "proof" or the value of "evidence" in this case. Understand that I seek evidence that will convince ME. (Not you.) (You are already convinced.) Hence if your so-called "evidence" is weak -in my opinion- and compared to what I already know, then you are correct --- It will not be accepted as proof by me. When you present evidence TO ME, it is up TO ME to evaluate it and decide if it is valid or convincing enough to withstand my own personal scrutiny. Yes, I am the judge of the evidence you present to me. You might, however, find some babe in the woods, who might accept your evidence and believe you, but in my case, it is not enough and it is not conclusive. all quite true. we all accept evidence individually. the evidence i accept is that evidence which can be subjected to the srtict scrutiny of the scientific method. no other "evidence" will do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
And the Lord said....
|
|
"But setting aside the emotional issues, Jews are clearly not a race" Hitler thought they were... enough so that he attempted to eliminate them... I don't think Hitler thought Jews were a race, but bloodlines were certainly a big concern in the search for the master race. Judaism is not a race because Jews do not share one common ancestry. For instance, Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews are both "Jewish." However, whereas Ashkenazi Jews often hail from Europe, Sephardic Jews often hail from the Middle East. People of many different races have become Jewish over the centuries. Last post on this specific subject as it's not of the subject of the thread, nor is it related to religious beliefs. all humans have a common ancestor whether you think it was adam ar susie, the first known humanoid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is an immense amount of evidence to contradict a 6 day creation process. While there may be cause to question the big bang, there is no evidence that outright contradicts it. actually there's no evidence to contradict genesis, just no evidence to support it. and yes, the scientific method is all about questioning the validity of a theory including searching for evidence that will contradict it. scientists live to one up each other. somebody presents evidence to support a theory and other's put the evidence to the scrutiny of the scientific method to test the validity of the new evidence in supporting the theory. if the test does support the theory then the theory stands. if not, the theory is adjusted or disgarded. Btw a better analogy instead of a cat eating a bicycle. If I came up to you and said thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado in a lumberyard and this ultimately resulted in the amazing design and complexity of the house you live in would you be open minded or sane?
that's about on par with my cat ate my bicycle. your point? Now for my last post on this topic I will explain why I feel the big bang is unbelievable for me.
A few important questions that the THEORY can not answer: Where did all the matter in the universe come from? If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together? If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded, then where did the energy come from to start the spinning? Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. Which is a known law of science. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from. Which we know that Venus and Uranus spin backwards. And for your sake we can disregard the moons that not only spin backwards but travel around their planets backwards. We also know (A)matter cannot be created or destroyed and (B)everything tends towards disorder. So (A)The big bang ignored that law and (B)Instead of the big bang creating the universe it would actually be the other way around, which it is the universe is wearing down and becoming more chaotic. If you believe in the evolution of the earth - precambrian granites are not the product of evolution of the earth (known fact) but were here at creation (which was stated in Genesis 1:1) - tried to stay away from the biblical part of this but it's a neat fact, I think. Their is only 2 choices: Someone created earth or it created itself (despite known laws of science contradicting everything about it). And if anyone believes god used the big bang to create the world then message me and I will explain that is as false as the big bang but I am tired of typing at the moment. In conclusion if you believe the big bang then I'd switch theories to plasma cosmology, which is far more believable. some very good questions that we don't have the answers to YET but alot of rambling that shows again that you've not a clue what the theory is all about. so let's try this; what's your THEORY of how the universe began and if the evidence of the big bang is not reasonable to you to see the theory as at least plausible, what evidence have you seen to support whatever theory you have? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't argue that just remember it is the big bang theory, it is just a theory that things exploded and created the universe, which I find insane as you find the 6-day. I was posting how I felt, however, not posting so that someone that has no say in what I believe to be my truth could disrespect the way I feel on the topic. Have a great night! What is "Scientology"? or what does it mean to you? A scheme you don't think scientology has anything to do with science do you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't argue that just remember it is the big bang theory, it is just a theory that things exploded and created the universe, which I find insane as you find the 6-day. this just illustrates further that you've no clue what the theory is all about. the universe is still being created to this day 13.75 billion years after we think the big bang occured. we've seen evidence that dates back to a few miliseconds after the big bang that supports the theory. it's true that we don't know what actually occured precisely at the time of the bang or what was present before, if anything. but science can only study what evidence our tools, hubble, cassini, etc., can uncover and those tools have produced not a shred of evidence to support a universe created in six days. to speak of what is insane is interesting in this context. the psychological diagnosis of delusional is to belief in a concept in spite of evidence of an alternative concept. to believe in genesis fits the diagnosis it seems to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes..how would the big bang theory even make sense..so im supposed to believe that 20 million years ago small matter exploded and created the earth with water, trees, clouds, and existence of life...not to mention the theory also includes creating the whole universe..very very unlikely of course the big bang theory makes no sense to you. you don't seem to have the slightest grasp of what the theory is as evidenced by your 20 million year timeline not to mention the nonsense of the earth, trees, water, clouds, life, etc., occuring anywhere near the time of the big bang. even our own sun appeared no less than five billion years ago. a theory will never make sense unless you've correctly studied the theory. Clearly you haven't correctly read the whole thread or you would have realized I corrected myself and also you should know that I do know what the THEORY is I choose not believe in scientology kthxbye no indeed i don't read every post. i comment on the posts that i choose to comment on and your post illustrates that you don't understand the theory. if you've corrected your timeline to 13.75 billion years, the latest estimate of the age of the universe, then great, you're on your way to understanding. the THEORY did not originate with scientologists btw. Ive searched for a while and yet to see a number such as 13.75 but close i think 16 was the most common..but its good to see no one really knows anything about it so let a theory be a theory everyone can choose a theory and believe it no physicist BELIEVES in the big bang or any other theory. yes, we see the big bang theory as the most plausible explanation of the beginings of the visible universe. in fact, to my knowledge it's the only scientific theory. certainly genesis does not come close to what science would call a viable theory: 'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.' stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell. no, i don't have a damn internet link. had to type directly from the friggin' book. at least the big bang theory has evidence which can be subjected to the science method. genesis has nothing but testimony so to BELIEVE it requires faith that the testimony is factual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont really go along with legislating pornography of any type. As much sex and violence is readily available in media, it seems hypocritical. Target those who MAKE the videos, yes. Those people who physically make these children perform,, yes. The ones who are watching, however sick it is...no. I have never thought INACTION should be a crime. well it is a crime and crime has consequences. i'm sure the perp could use some money for his appeals, perhaps you folks might contribute. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sat 11/05/11 04:42 AM
|
|
Im sincerely Sorry Jr, but ur post is so far removed from reality it beggars belief . . Bless u and ur Family . i gave specific industries where america's capitalistic system is leading not only germany but every other country on the planet. how about you, any specifics or just an arbitrary, overly broad comment? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Fri 11/04/11 03:54 PM
|
|
Yes..how would the big bang theory even make sense..so im supposed to believe that 20 million years ago small matter exploded and created the earth with water, trees, clouds, and existence of life...not to mention the theory also includes creating the whole universe..very very unlikely of course the big bang theory makes no sense to you. you don't seem to have the slightest grasp of what the theory is as evidenced by your 20 million year timeline not to mention the nonsense of the earth, trees, water, clouds, life, etc., occuring anywhere near the time of the big bang. even our own sun appeared no less than five billion years ago. a theory will never make sense unless you've correctly studied the theory. Clearly you haven't correctly read the whole thread or you would have realized I corrected myself and also you should know that I do know what the THEORY is I choose not believe in scientology kthxbye no indeed i don't read every post. i comment on the posts that i choose to comment on and your post illustrates that you don't understand the theory. if you've corrected your timeline to 13.75 billion years, the latest estimate of the age of the universe, then great, you're on your way to understanding. the THEORY did not originate with scientologists btw. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing big needs fixin'. i'm retired from a career traveling to fifty two countries. think i'll just sit back and enjoy this one now. leave all the fixin' to you folks. you'll likely break it more than it is but somebody'll set it right. mh, which country with even near the size of our population has a better quality of life? does size matter , could a family of 20 not learn anything from a family of 4? damn right size matters. name a country that comes close to having the same number of well off people as america does. even on a percentage basis america's lifestyle is hard to beat but when you consider that hundreds of millions are better off in this country than anywhere near that number in any other country the size becomes important. that a family of twenty can provide for five times a family of four says alot about the efficiency of the larger family. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Fri 11/04/11 02:00 PM
|
|
germany already has some problems. they're easing out of socialized medicine because it just plain doesn't work. there's really no more capatalistic country on the planet than germany when you get right down to it and the population is tiring of the high taxes. and america is hardly losing out on manufacturing. the tech industry, as an example, is going strong as is the biomedical industry and service based industries. the latest shale oil finds have made us the largest producer of natural gas in the world. in five years america will be stronger economically than ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes..how would the big bang theory even make sense..so im supposed to believe that 20 million years ago small matter exploded and created the earth with water, trees, clouds, and existence of life...not to mention the theory also includes creating the whole universe..very very unlikely of course the big bang theory makes no sense to you. you don't seem to have the slightest grasp of what the theory is as evidenced by your 20 million year timeline not to mention the nonsense of the earth, trees, water, clouds, life, etc., occuring anywhere near the time of the big bang. even our own sun appeared no less than five billion years ago. a theory will never make sense unless you've correctly studied the theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom of assembly, and speech via permit only? and then having permit denied without reason given. IS THAT THE KIND OF FREEDOM YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE HAPPY WITH? It's not the kind of freedom President Obama and Hillary Clinton have expounded on so often. let's take a different approach since you obviously have no interest in opposing views. YOUR topic is the first amendment and it's obvious that you think a you tube production makes the point that people's rights have been violated. so why don't you make your case that the protester's first amendment rights have been violated? keep in mind though, nobody's rights are absolute. yor right to free speech is not protected if you speak of a bomb in an airport security check point. you've no right to peaceably assemble if you disrupt others. so make your case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, Did anyone actually watch the You tube presentation? watched enough to get the point. one i don't agree with. nobody's constitutional rights violated. You have no beliefs, therefore you can hold no opinion although it surprises me that someone who holds no beliefs would watch a few minutes of a video and draw such a black and white conclusion, similar to some of the most fundamentalist thought to be had. don't see the correlation between belief and opinion. nevertheless, as you said, i stated a conclusion that i came to, not a belief or opinion. and i really don't need to watch much of a you tube video posted on a dating site forum to conclude that a bias exists. but then i'd never put up a link to a you tube video to make a point if that was your purpose. nor would i ask for discussion if i wasn't interested in views which might differ from my own and i certainly would make what a person believes or doesn't believe the issue. so now we've wasted a few posts not discussing the first amendment in the least. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Wed 11/02/11 05:51 AM
|
|
here ya go. pen and teller.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hawking postulates that there was nothing before the big bang. no time, space, nothing. Hawking is a limited thinker. He has NO imagination. There is no such thing as "nothing" "Nothing" cannot exist. Now perhaps it would depend on how you describe "nothing." Perhaps there was dark matter and dark energy. wondering why you begin a thread with a question when you think you have all the answers, jeannie. "nothing" cannot exist??? How can Nothing exist? Please explain. i didn't say it. hawking did. perhaps you can make better sense of his book "a brief history of time" than i was able to. you see, i'm even a more limited thinker than hawking is, jeannie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, Did anyone actually watch the You tube presentation? watched enough to get the point. one i don't agree with. nobody's constitutional rights violated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Wed 11/02/11 05:23 AM
|
|
nothing big needs fixin'. i'm retired from a career traveling to fifty two countries. think i'll just sit back and enjoy this one now. leave all the fixin' to you folks. you'll likely break it more than it is but somebody'll set it right.
mh, which country with even near the size of our population has a better quality of life? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
regarding the op and the emboldened print 'impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.' I think the most telling part of the first amendment is the beginning words Congress shall make no law Pretty specifically, to me,(the only part that seems specific at all) it means CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW which deals with religion, speech, the press, assembly, or petitions of redress It takes authority over those issues out of the hands of congress. Well it certainly didn't stop Congress from making laws to abridge those rights. have they? actually they have, and they haven't. of course the first amendment applies to more than just laws made by congress and indeed many laws and even policies made at the municiple level have been put into effect and later challenged as unconstitutional. so your question is valid and hardly rhetorical, mh. since a law does not abridge anybody's constitutional rights unless it has been ruled so in federal court, no law now on the books is unconstitutional as abridging anybody's rights. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
