|
Just tell me one thing...
Who do I need to blow to get nominated for the supreme court?
|
|
|
|
|
Now you are just trolling...
We've been over this theory vs hypothesis = fact vs guess a dozen times already... if you don't understand it, you never will
|
|
|
|
|
This leaves the US supreme court with 4 conservative vs 4 liberal justices...
The republican-majority congress will likely spend the next 10 months blocking whoever Obama nominates, hoping for a republican president who can nominate a conservative justice
|
|
|
|
...
On the bright side, as people get smarter, they ditch that stone age religion nonsense...
+1 That is exactly right. Education is the key. I have no problem in people believing whatever they want. I have problem with their missionary work. When they preach what they believe to others and invoke science to justify their hallucinations. Science and religion should only intersect in mental research facilities. And this is exactly what happens - science and religion intersecting - when people believe that science theory is truth. Until you find a better method for separating fact from fiction than the scientific method... Science theory is the best it gets in regards to truth and reality... Science theory trumps religious hypothesis every time... the primary difference being evidence (or lack thereof) With proper education, religions like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism will go away... just like all the other ancient religions have... Nobody believes in Zeus or Horus or Moloch anymore... soon they won't believe in Jesus either. |
|
|
|
And also, and I divert a bit, why aren't in our modern days real prophets or miracle workers like in the days of old when the apostoles lived?
So we can see the power of God by ourselves.
I'm sure we have them. They spend their days taking medications in mental hospitals. So true... God talks to Moses... alone... on a mountain = religion Anyone else claims God spoke to them = insane Why the double standard? Why not lump Moses in with all the other lunatics who claim they talk to God? |
|
|
|
Why do people even need to talk about god in 21 century?
We just need to apply most of good things from every religion..
Don't kill, don't steal..
Nigga please... Religion did not invent morality! Do not kill and do not steal were laws long before the bible... Ever heard of "the code of Hammurabi"? Much older than the bible, and still not the first secular system of laws! |
|
|
|
|
I have heard upwards of 50% of women are bisexual... thoughts?
|
|
|
|
ben carson said something like this in the context of prison rape and was ridiculed by the left, but it makes sense, this could also help explain why 30% of paedophiles are also homosexuals
That is a huge under-estimation. Crimes against boys are heavily under-reported, when compared to those against the girls. IMO, a majority of the sex crimes against children are committed against the boys. And since more than 98% of the perpetrators are male, you can assume how many of them are gay or bisexual. Gays actually infest children to become gays by molesting them. That's one of the ways how homosexualism spreads. By keeping children away from homosexuals we can save them from becoming infested. i really hard to understand your mindset but i cant.. gay people never do such brutal things you've mentioned.. homosexualism has genetic source not spread by molesting.. The irony of homosexuality being genetic is... If you let them be gay, get gay married, and not spread their genes... the genes will disappear over time, making fewer homosexuals... But, if instead you harass and murder homosexuals... They will go into hiding, marry someone of the opposite sex, and pass their "gay genes" on to another generation... Basically, let them get gay married and there shouldn't be many gays left after a few generations... So your saying if a gay man or gay woman has a baby that baby will be gay?  NOW THAT IS DUMB  That is not at all what I said... genetics doesn't work like that... two "little people" could have a normal sized child... two green eyed people could have a blue eyed child... not all genes are dominant... I was only implying that since homosexuality has a genetic component, the rate of homosexuality would be lower had it been legal instead of repressed Around 5% of humans are homosexual (not even including bisexual)... that's amazingly high for a genetic trait which voluntarily removes itself from the gene pool... |
|
|
|
Everyone knows Jesus was black... white boys ain't got abs of steel...  Jesus was darker than Ben Carson  |
|
|
|
  Forgive me for not finding charts with perfectly matching years, but I can see a negative correlation between IQ and Religiosity... On the bright side, as people get smarter, they ditch that stone age religion nonsense... |
|
|
|
try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.
Testimonies are not acceptable forms of evidence for science. Testimonies are by definition subjective hearsay... It is not possible to prove anything based on testimony alone Miracles on the other hand, do not exist. Period. End of story. There is no evidence for miracles, and by definition, there cannot ever be any evidence of miracles Prayer does not work... Try praying for an amputee to regrow their limb... it wont happen... The Templeton institute did a scientific study on prayer involving 1802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients separated into 3 groups... group 1 and 3 were prayed for by 3 entire churches, while group 2 was not prayed for. Group 3 was also made aware they were being prayed for, but group 1 was unaware... the results were: Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). Some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers Basically, no difference at all between group 1 & 2, while the group which knew hundreds of people were praying for them, died 14.6% more often, and " fared worse than those who did not receive prayers" Then if that's your opinion we have freedom of speech. I respect your opinion. With God, to believe is to see not to see is to believe. That is definitely not my "opinion", that is a fact, Jack... Testimony is often disregarded in Law as hearsay, etc... Testimony is always disregarded in Science as an untestable claim/opinion... Science does not and will never accept testimony as evidence |
|
|
|
try to search JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY testimonies there were great that God really exist until today and He's still doing different miracles to the people that believe in His name, Jesus Christ.
Testimonies are not acceptable forms of evidence for science. Testimonies are by definition subjective hearsay... It is not possible to prove anything based on testimony alone Miracles on the other hand, do not exist. Period. End of story. There is no evidence for miracles, and by definition, there cannot ever be any evidence of miracles Prayer does not work... Try praying for an amputee to regrow their limb... it wont happen... The Templeton institute did a scientific study on prayer involving 1802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients separated into 3 groups... group 1 and 3 were prayed for by 3 entire churches, while group 2 was not prayed for. Group 3 was also made aware they were being prayed for, but group 1 was unaware... the results were: Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). Some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers Basically, no difference at all between group 1 & 2, while the group which knew hundreds of people were praying for them, died 14.6% more often, and " fared worse than those who did not receive prayers" |
|
|
|
I'll simply continue to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. After all, even in the faulty explanations that they allow, one can find some grains of truth.
How would you define "truth" if you disagree with consensus reality? Wikipedia is basically... consensus reality... There are even rules against opinionated sections... everything must be factual, not opinion like you seem to think... I can't say that I've personally seen anything on Wikipedia that was not correct and accurate with linked sources, and verified by a simple google search Holy Jebus! Even the Wikipedia page about Wikipedia has 356 referenced sources!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Accuracy_of_content |
|
|
|
Tsk. Tsk. Got you backed into a corner. You are going off on political science tangents, because political science is the only thing that can prove something that is false to be true. It's call lying, one of the great parts of political science.
When you have lost a debate, do not resort to Ad-Hominem attacks... it makes you look childish, and proves you have no evidence to support your claims |
|
|
|
Proof for the existence of God is found in the 3 scientific laws:
1. cause and effect;
2. complex universe;
3. universal entropy.
No matter how many times you state this nonsense, it will never make it true If you actually want to convince someone that you are correct, you must elaborate with supporting evidence, sources, examples, etc... otherwise you are simply a troll repeating bullshit that you pulled out of your ass |
|
|
|
EDIT: Btw, your video is simply some joker talking about some things he seems to believe. No proof is offered for or against Darwinism.
You clearly did not watch the video... please stop pretending you did... I believe the bible says you are not supposed to lie, correct? I never said it offered proof for or against Darwinism... I said he details exactly how Christians twist the words of Darwin to imply something that Darwin did not intend Specifically, Christians will quote: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree But they always neglect to put the quote in context... To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility. |
|
|
|
Chuckle. The fact that you get bent all out of shape, shows that you wouldn't be able to understand it if it were given to you. But, I'll help you. Google search:
1. "Cause and effect;"
2. "Complex universe;"
3. "Universal entropy."
As others have previously mentioned... stating this proves nothing to anyone... I fully understand these concepts and in no way does it imply or require God If you wish to convince anyone... you MUST stop with the personal attacks and provide some fucking evidence to support your claim... otherwise you are simply a troll I have watched some of these videos, and like most Christian propaganda (yourself included), they do not understand the basics of what they are talking about... so of course they reach incorrect conclusions... For example... in this video: Case for a Creator - Biological Information ClipIllustra Media makes the claim that DNA is simply too complicated to have been assembled out of nothing... therefore God... Now, in reality, DNA did not come from nothing... so they are partially correct... DNA had several predecessors, which were simpler in form and function ( RNA for example) They also make the claim that "theories proposing that this information arose through the self-organizing power of chemicals in a primordial soup have repeatedly failed"... this is simply ignorance here... The Miller-Urey experiment proved this in 1952, and has been duplicated and verified many times since then... Most recently, http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-ames-reproduces-the-building-blocks-of-life-in-laboratoryWe have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, cytosine, and thymine, all three components of RNA and DNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space If this is the of source of your misinformation, I understand why everything you say is so completely wrong |
|
|
|
Hey, man. The scientific laws of cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy aren't twisted by believers in God. They are twisted by the atheists. If you bothered to watch the video you are responding to, you would see exactly what I am referring to... this is proven fact, not speculation like everything you post |
|
|
|
...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.
Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists? When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like: http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."
If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something. I didn't expect a religitard like you to actually post a link to a source... probably because no source would/could ever back up your claim that science has proven God exists... If you cannot provide a source, the obvious conclusion is that you pulled the claim straight out of your assHow do you do your research if not via Google? I'm curious now... what am I doing wrong? Somehow I only seem to find articles that agree with consensus reality, not your fantasy land claims You will have to do your own research on this one. However, you have one obvious point going for you. Since you can't even do your own research, there probably isn't much of any way that you would understand it if you found it. And there isn't any way that you could think enough to understand anything on your own. Why am I not surprised you continually choose to insult me rather than post a fucking link? ( argumentum ad hominem) Way to represent Christ... WWJD? If you can't be arsed to provide evidence for your claim... nevermind... you probably wouldn't understand even if I explain it to you... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
