Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

[FurthurBB]

I don't think most of the retards posting anti-Christian tripe on here, including yourself, have made it into college.

What have I posted that is anti Christian you ignorant twit?
Now as far as my education goes, have you ever heard of FULL RIDE?
BBA for that at taxpayer expense but we put 80,000 fannies in the seats.
And Masters 7 years later plus numerous seminars in forensic investigative techniques.
Yes, I may be educated far beyond my intelligence but at least I AM educated.
You are a bimbo of the nth degree. Suffer in your ignorance but keep it up.
I love a good laugh and your avatar looks like someone that used to be a groupie back in the day. I forgot her name.

Really? Why do people feel the need to defend themselves like this from a person who obviously can hardly put a coherent 1/2 sentence together? I lost a little respect here.

 

[Cammmpbell]

god has never been proven, proof of evolution is that we exist.

Wrong.

What? I thought you would like that argument since it is as lame as your own.

The things associated with believing in a god are the most rediculous totally insane ideas I've ever read in my life. Brainwashing at an early age by parents and or authority figures is definitely a requirement.

 

[FurthurBB]

Don't tell me....don't tell me

You failed High School Biology

If she was like me, I was the troublemaker raising my hand, saying:
"Uhm, excuse me, that's not really accurate, is it?"

Of course I'm nowhere near as tactless of someone I knew once, who would say things to college profs like:
"Didn't he go to jail back then for falsifying those very images? Shouldn't you know a little more about your subject before you teach it?"

That little harangue was followed by a few seconds of cold stare, then the chalk was thrown across the room and the professor stormed out of the room...

(...and the rest of the class clapped and cheered...)

Community college teachers are usually just students who are not used to dealing with children. I think you should act like an adult even in community college, but what do I know, I never went there. Although, I did teach there while I was still in school.

 

[FurthurBB]

I've never seen the bible be proven wrong.
I have, however, seen scientific theories come and go.

So you are one of those who actually accepts this stuff

Mankind and dinosaurs on a boat till nearly four mile deep waters receded/evaporated?

The boat's been discovered, last time I heard.
Not a problem; it's just a question of "resuscitation".
Heck yes. We know how to build thermoses to block "convection, conduction, and radiation" --- the three means of heat transfer.
I have no problem with this either; we're about to engage "force field technology".
Does your TV turn on by remote command?
What does a Human look like when the water is removed?
I went to Mexico in 1991 to see an eclipse.
It's just a question of moving molecules around; no big deal for someone who built the place in the first place.
Heck, we can do that now; "artificial insemination".
More "moving molecules around". NBD.
Simple physics; if a force is applied equal to and opposite of one's weight, he can walk on anything.
No worse than "multiplying food" --- molecule manipulation.

Raising from the dead?

Again, moving molecules; fixing whatever system failed, and a pair of "jumper cables".

Hanging a man on a tree and bleeding him to death only to see him rise again?

More molecules.

Here's the $64,000 question --- why do you need to have things fit into what your are accustomed to understanding from your five senses?

Can your senses be lied to? Yup.

Take the last one --- can you successfully and credibly deny the guy was raised from the dead? Thousands of people saw Him. The records were not written long after the event, they were written while observers were still around; the records are credible, the testimony is credible --- and you "reserve the right to REJECT the story because it doesn't make sense to you".

With respect, where did you get the pedestal from which you assert the authority to believe things or not?

You know the problem is you are giving other people's opinions your own egocentric views. Things do not have to fit in my world according to my senses, but fit they have to into the puzzle. If I had something paranormal happen that does not fit with my world views, I would not dismiss it offhand. I also would never accept it offhand either. I think that is the difference between us.

 

[newpolitics]

Christianity is a stolen religion from countless other dieties at the time, and rewritten to gain political control. Look how huge Rome got after it accepted Christianity with Constantine... Christianity is politically motivated, and reflects nothing of truth in and of itself. How does one write off the council of Nicea? Sorry. This is the only truth. Fundamentalists are listening to the word of a bunch of dudes in robes sitting in an ancient boardroom meeting and calling it fact, above that of observable evidence, and then trying to install their views on the rest of us. I hope religion dies someday and we come to our fucking senses as a species.

 

[Cammmpbell]

So you are one of those who actually accepts this stuff

Mankind and dinosaurs on a boat till nearly four mile deep waters receded/evaporated?

The boat's been discovered, last time I heard.
Not a problem; it's just a question of "resuscitation".
Heck yes. We know how to build thermoses to block "convection, conduction, and radiation" --- the three means of heat transfer.
I have no problem with this either; we're about to engage "force field technology".
Does your TV turn on by remote command?
What does a Human look like when the water is removed?
I went to Mexico in 1991 to see an eclipse.
It's just a question of moving molecules around; no big deal for someone who built the place in the first place.
Heck, we can do that now; "artificial insemination".
More "moving molecules around". NBD.
Simple physics; if a force is applied equal to and opposite of one's weight, he can walk on anything.
No worse than "multiplying food" --- molecule manipulation.
Again, moving molecules; fixing whatever system failed, and a pair of "jumper cables".

Hanging a man on a tree and bleeding him to death only to see him rise again?

More molecules.

Here's the $64,000 question --- why do you need to have things fit into what your are accustomed to understanding from your five senses?

Can your senses be lied to? Yup.

Take the last one --- can you successfully and credibly deny the guy was raised from the dead? Thousands of people saw Him. The records were not written long after the event, they were written while observers were still around; the records are credible, the testimony is credible --- and you "reserve the right to REJECT the story because it doesn't make sense to you".

With respect, where did you get the pedestal from which you assert the authority to believe things or not?

You know the problem is you are giving other people's opinions your own egocentric views. Things do not have to fit in my world according to my senses, but fit they have to into the puzzle. If I had something paranormal happen that does not fit with my world views, I would not dismiss it offhand. I also would never accept it offhand either. I think that is the difference between us.

Paranormal...LMAO!

My granddaddy and uncles used to tell my cousins and I ghost stories to scare the shit out of us. Now this bullshit paranormal TV is turning a profit. Deliver us............

 

[FurthurBB]

We have already mapped the genome. We know what we are and what we came from.

That's funny (aside from being a lie) because the principle player in mapping the human genome, the #1 genetecist in the world, believes God created us.

Anybody who believes some invisible man in the sky created us and only let ignorant goat herders from the stone age have the information is definitely not number one in anything...maybe insanity.

I do not agree with this at all. I come from a religious culture that has produced many of the top scientific, business, and finance minds in the world. They believe in the same invisible man in the sky that christians do.

 

[FurthurBB]

Which version of science are we using to day?

The latest one.

Believers in dogmatic religion have a problem, it seems, with the inherent uncertainty in science. It's completely different from the formula of "this is absolutely so because Authority says it is" that underlies dogma. Science operates on a different principle: "we think this is so because we observe the following evidence that it is so, but it remains possible that we're wrong." It's not as emotionally satisfying to those who are used to pronouncements of Absolute Truth From On High.

Despite this uncertainty, the advantage of science is that there IS evidence behind its assertions, while there is often NO evidence behind the pronouncements of dogma. Because of this, the pronouncements of dogma, despite the greater certainty with which they are presented, are much less likely to be true.

It's funny that the believers in "religion" have never changed there position, but the believers in science change theirs. Why is that?

If you finished the third grade you should know the answer to this question, also you are wrong about the first part as well.

 

[FurthurBB]

It's funny that the believers in "religion" have never changed there position, but the believers in science change theirs. Why is that?

Because believers in religion don't bother about the facts, or about learning anything new. They receive fixed and for-all-time answers from Absolute Authority, and never check those answers against observable reality.

That they have never changed their position is not a point in their favor.

Really? Are you sure about that? What Catholics Believe - Beliefnet.com Home - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Home - United Pentecostal Church International Our mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. - UMC.org Should I go on?

 

[FurthurBB]

It's funny that the believers in "religion" have never changed there position, but the believers in science change theirs. Why is that?

Because believers in religion don't bother about the facts, or about learning anything new. They receive fixed and for-all-time answers from Absolute Authority, and never check those answers against observable reality.

That they have never changed their position is not a point in their favor.

You know after 2000+ years there should have been some change in those belief's but there hasn't There has been one central truth to their belief that their is one God creator.

Really? This is really what you want to go with?

 

[Photonic]

Can't explain why those theories haven't worked out so we change the words. got it.

And those theories would be...?

I lost count 25 theories ago.

So in other words, you don't know any.

 

[FurthurBB]

How did scientists prove God does not exist?

Everything that cannot be studied and tested does not exist in the minds of scientists.

No, but science is the study of natural phenomenon. Things that cannot be studied and tested are outside the realm of scientific study.

 

[koshergrl]

The latest one.

Believers in dogmatic religion have a problem, it seems, with the inherent uncertainty in science. It's completely different from the formula of "this is absolutely so because Authority says it is" that underlies dogma. Science operates on a different principle: "we think this is so because we observe the following evidence that it is so, but it remains possible that we're wrong." It's not as emotionally satisfying to those who are used to pronouncements of Absolute Truth From On High.

Despite this uncertainty, the advantage of science is that there IS evidence behind its assertions, while there is often NO evidence behind the pronouncements of dogma. Because of this, the pronouncements of dogma, despite the greater certainty with which they are presented, are much less likely to be true.

It's funny that the believers in "religion" have never changed there position, but the believers in science change theirs. Why is that?

If you finished the third grade you should know the answer to this question, also you are wrong about the first part as well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The latest one.

Believers in dogmatic religion have a problem, it seems, with the inherent uncertainty in science. It's completely different from the formula of "this is absolutely so because Authority says it is" that underlies dogma. Science operates on a different principle: "we think this is so because we observe the following evidence that it is so, but it remains possible that we're wrong." It's not as emotionally satisfying to those who are used to pronouncements of Absolute Truth From On High.

Despite this uncertainty, the advantage of science is that there IS evidence behind its assertions, while there is often NO evidence behind the pronouncements of dogma. Because of this, the pronouncements of dogma, despite the greater certainty with which they are presented, are much less likely to be true.

It's funny that the believers in "religion" have never changed there position, but the believers in science change theirs. Why is that?

If you finished the third grade you should know the answer to this question, also you are wrong about the first part as well.

Really ? is that a fact junior? I mean exactly what have believers in religion changes their views on?

One God a God head the trinity exactly what is your fucking idea of change?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And those theories would be...?

I lost count 25 theories ago.

So in other words, you don't know any.

I lost count it's hard to keep a score when things change in science so much.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because believers in religion don't bother about the facts, or about learning anything new. They receive fixed and for-all-time answers from Absolute Authority, and never check those answers against observable reality.

That they have never changed their position is not a point in their favor.

You know after 2000+ years there should have been some change in those belief's but there hasn't There has been one central truth to their belief that their is one God creator.

Really? This is really what you want to go with?

Fucking hell yeah that what the fuck I want to go with what in the hell do you have?

 

[Photonic]

I lost count 25 theories ago.

So in other words, you don't know any.

I lost count it's hard to keep a score when things change in science so much.

Wait, did you really just list change as a negative in science?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So in other words, you don't know any.

I lost count it's hard to keep a score when things change in science so much.

Wait, did you really just list change as a negative in science?

When things don't add up to a specific conclusion science changes to fit that conclusion

 

[Dr Grump]

You know after 2000+ years there should have been some change in those belief's but there hasn't There has been one central truth to their belief that their is one God creator.

Really? This is really what you want to go with?

Fucking hell yeah that what the fuck I want to go with what in the hell do you have?

Mormons
Christian Scientists
Greek Orthodox
Russian Orthodox
Presbytarian
Jehovah's Witnesses
Seventh Day Adventists
Unitarians
Baptists
Methodists
Catholics
Church of England
Amish
Quakers


Now, big reb, I think you were inferring that Christians never changed their minds over 2000 years....

 

[Dr Grump]

I lost count it's hard to keep a score when things change in science so much.

Wait, did you really just list change as a negative in science?

When things don't add up to a specific conclusion science changes to fit that conclusion

Actually it doesn't. If I could be bothered (and I can't) I'd pwn you on this. Maybe Loki will meander along and own your arse - if he can be bothered...