If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.
There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life. Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity. Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen. The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver. That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? : https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o3dLq8YGkWI/hqdefault.jpghttps://i.pinimg.com/236x/aa/2e/ab/aa2eabfc9455479bf219b97a9e3e5198--fractal-dendritic-agate.jpghttp://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1PG6K/dendritic-drainage-pattern-aerial-view-erosion-gullies-in-the-mancos-C1PG6K.jpgThat is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself. By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything. You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory? You, Astargath, keep on ignoring or forgetting that, even if evolution were somehow possible according to evolution theory, it is still impossible with regard to the requirements for life on any planet. What do I mean? This: ...
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
...
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. [For example. Ed.] Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
...  Such a claim is fraught with statistical perils, however. The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. In order for me to be writing this piece at this precise instant on this airplane, having done all the things I’ve done today, consider all the factors that had to be “just right”: I had to find myself in San Francisco, among all the cities in the world; the sequence of stoplights that my taxi had to traverse had to be just right, in order to get me to the airport when I did; the airport security screener had to experience a similar set of coincidences in order to be there when I needed her; same goes for the pilot. It would be easy for me to derive a set of probabilities that, when multiplied together, would produce a number so small that it would be statistically impossible for me to be here now writing. This approach, of course, involves many fallacies. It is clear that many routes could have led to the same result. Similarly, when we consider the evolution of life on Earth, we have to ask what factors could have been different and still allowed for intelligent life. Consider a wild example, involving the asteroid that hit Earth sixty-five million years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs and a host of other species, and probably allowing an evolutionary niche for mammals to begin to flourish. This was a bad thing for life in general, but a good thing for us. Had that not happened, however, maybe giant intelligent reptiles would be arguing about the existence of God today. An even more severe problem in Metaxas’s argument is the assumption of randomness, namely that physical processes do not naturally drive a system toward a certain state. This is the most common error among those who argue that, given the complexity of life on Earth, evolution is as implausible as a tornado ravaging a junkyard and producing a 747. The latter event is, indeed, essentially statistically impossible. However, we now understand that the process of natural selection implies that evolution is anything but random. Is it a miracle that the planet produced animals as complex as, and yet as different from, humans, dolphins, and cicadas, each so well “designed” for its own habitat? No. Natural selection drives systems in a specific direction, and the remarkable diversity of species on Earth today, each evolved for evolutionary success in a different environment, is one result. You realize what you just posted^^^, don't you? There have been scientists, researchers, and doctors working for years to put together a living cell from scratch. Finally, after hundreds of thousands of man-hours, they have managed to manipulate some DNA so that they can make some new kind of life. But they still haven't been able to duplicate the complexity of life from scratch. Dumb old nature has out-selected the smartest scientists, researchers, and doctors in making life in tremendous abundance. In fact, nature has done it just like God would... if God existed. Thanks for admitting that God exists. Evolution is a hoax. Besides, Metaxas is simply putting a bunch of findings together. He isn't making a new theory. He is simply showing what a lot of other people have found out. So what, there are many things scientists cannot create and 7000 years ago we barely invented the wheel, I don't see your point here. Life is a complex matter, it also has been evolving for millions and millions of years. In the future we might even be able to make a human from scratch, who knows but you have no argument here. I on the other side, destroyed your bullshit ''200 component needed'' argument. Now go back to your cave and think. |
|
|
|
There is much to quarrel and argue on this subject, but you guys have to understand that the laws of gravity has not been canceled. Moreover, they even religion recognizes the scientific work of many researchers. So you need to find common ground.
Gravity is a theory, a shitty one that's wrong. Is it really a surprise that the synagogue of Satan recognizes a shitty theory that's wrong? Common burial ground for these fucking liars. HERMAPHRODITE_LIAR.JPG Well, If anyone doubt in shape of earth, there are many proofs, like Aristotle had suggested, go outside during the lunar eclipse and watch on the moon, there is shadow of earth, it is round shape.
You're Welcome.
The heliocentric model is a theory, a shitty one that's wrong. You have to assume this shitty theory that's wrong is actually true before even considering this "proof". Fucking retarded clown can't even logic. CLOWN_WITH_DOWNS.JPG Flat earth theory is a only a theory a shitty one that's wrong, you have to have 10 IQ points to think it's true. |
|
|
|
If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.
There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life. Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity. Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen. The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver. That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? : https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o3dLq8YGkWI/hqdefault.jpghttps://i.pinimg.com/236x/aa/2e/ab/aa2eabfc9455479bf219b97a9e3e5198--fractal-dendritic-agate.jpghttp://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1PG6K/dendritic-drainage-pattern-aerial-view-erosion-gullies-in-the-mancos-C1PG6K.jpgThat is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself. By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything. You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory? You, Astargath, keep on ignoring or forgetting that, even if evolution were somehow possible according to evolution theory, it is still impossible with regard to the requirements for life on any planet. What do I mean? This: ...
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
...
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. [For example. Ed.] Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
... Such a claim is fraught with statistical perils, however. The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. In order for me to be writing this piece at this precise instant on this airplane, having done all the things I’ve done today, consider all the factors that had to be “just right”: I had to find myself in San Francisco, among all the cities in the world; the sequence of stoplights that my taxi had to traverse had to be just right, in order to get me to the airport when I did; the airport security screener had to experience a similar set of coincidences in order to be there when I needed her; same goes for the pilot. It would be easy for me to derive a set of probabilities that, when multiplied together, would produce a number so small that it would be statistically impossible for me to be here now writing. This approach, of course, involves many fallacies. It is clear that many routes could have led to the same result. Similarly, when we consider the evolution of life on Earth, we have to ask what factors could have been different and still allowed for intelligent life. Consider a wild example, involving the asteroid that hit Earth sixty-five million years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs and a host of other species, and probably allowing an evolutionary niche for mammals to begin to flourish. This was a bad thing for life in general, but a good thing for us. Had that not happened, however, maybe giant intelligent reptiles would be arguing about the existence of God today. An even more severe problem in Metaxas’s argument is the assumption of randomness, namely that physical processes do not naturally drive a system toward a certain state. This is the most common error among those who argue that, given the complexity of life on Earth, evolution is as implausible as a tornado ravaging a junkyard and producing a 747. The latter event is, indeed, essentially statistically impossible. However, we now understand that the process of natural selection implies that evolution is anything but random. Is it a miracle that the planet produced animals as complex as, and yet as different from, humans, dolphins, and cicadas, each so well “designed” for its own habitat? No. Natural selection drives systems in a specific direction, and the remarkable diversity of species on Earth today, each evolved for evolutionary success in a different environment, is one result. |
|
|
|
^^^ Clearly Musk can get you from point A to point B so long as you stop to charge the battery every few miles, this isn't the issue here. These videos he's posting to YouTube of "reusable rockets" (fake) going to "outer space" (fake) that show a "globe Earth" (fake) are fake ass shit; he's obviously doing this propaganda to get gibs.
Everything you say is fake as shit, you are a jew. |
|
|
|
You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory?
I have no consistent and proven theory how life came to being just clues and hunches. That doesnt mean that when the science would know more about the subject it knows little - we will eventualy make the theory of life creation. I hope we will. Neither the evolutionist have when the hyphothesis about the abiogenesis of a spontanious creation of every aminoacids possible from a primordial soup was disproven and disregarded as a wrong hyphotesis. It was proven to not be the case, and yet - although proven otherwise some crazy evolutionists was claiming it was a proven hyphotesis. If there would be a spontanious creation of all the bricks of life I might have considered evolution to be true. But it was PROVEN that more than a half of the bricks of life were missing. I think the world was changed in the 6 days creation period. Maybe the laws of the universe was changing back then. Now we have different laws so it might be impossible to make life out of the dead in the current state of world. As a christian I believe that the world and its laws will cease to exist, and there would be new laws that would allow dead to come to life. But yes. It is not science ofcourse but at least it is not a disproven hyphotesis that I keep on beieving like crazy. Again you are talking a lot and saying too little. You indeed have no theory of creation, creation is regarded as junk science or pseudo science. The theory of evolution is the best we have until someone can come up with something better. Maybe creationism is junk, but theory of evolution is a junk proven to be false. Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur?
Good luck in awaiting your Messiah of evolution. Proven false by what? Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur? |
|
|
|
You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory?
I have no consistent and proven theory how life came to being just clues and hunches. That doesnt mean that when the science would know more about the subject it knows little - we will eventualy make the theory of life creation. I hope we will. Neither the evolutionist have when the hyphothesis about the abiogenesis of a spontanious creation of every aminoacids possible from a primordial soup was disproven and disregarded as a wrong hyphotesis. It was proven to not be the case, and yet - although proven otherwise some crazy evolutionists was claiming it was a proven hyphotesis. If there would be a spontanious creation of all the bricks of life I might have considered evolution to be true. But it was PROVEN that more than a half of the bricks of life were missing. I think the world was changed in the 6 days creation period. Maybe the laws of the universe was changing back then. Now we have different laws so it might be impossible to make life out of the dead in the current state of world. As a christian I believe that the world and its laws will cease to exist, and there would be new laws that would allow dead to come to life. But yes. It is not science ofcourse but at least it is not a disproven hyphotesis that I keep on beieving like crazy. Again you are talking a lot and saying too little. You indeed have no theory of creation, creation is regarded as junk science or pseudo science. The theory of evolution is the best we have until someone can come up with something better. |
|
|
|
eVOLUTION IS REAL
IS not a hoax at all . Life have been evolving since emerging frromm the first cells formed in the goo. To adapt to enviroment and spread increasing chances of urvival.
TO THE MOON TO MARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are two bariers that you do not acknowledge that science had not overcome. 1. No goo had ever seen to produce aminoacids needed for even the simplest of life form. 2. No hybridisation, adoption, mutation, natural selection had ever been observed to cross the barrier of making a new specie that can not breed with other speciment of the same specie but could give somehow new offsprings. So.... Good luck with those... Right now God is proven right with his words and laws that - place the barrier on 1. point and 2. point. And it was proven to be true. PM me if science will overcome those barriers. I would be shocked. Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur? |
|
|
|
If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.
There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life. Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity. Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen. The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver. That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? :    That is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself. By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything. You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory? |
|
|
|
You read my mind. "Paid troll would act the same". I am afraid he is not. That is the saddest part in all that. He thinks he is 100% honest... Sigh...
Which is worse? Knowing you are lying (trolling) or not knowing you are lying (religion). The worst is having a question that makes absolutely no logical sense. Definition of lying means a purposefully and knowingly misinform the person you speak to. You people need to know how to define the words you are using. Otherwise it is just a hot air. It is not just this word. Every word has its boundaries. Like the word of so called "the theory of evolution" have a connotation with creating new specie in a classical sense. That is how the word originated. Sadly - people talking about "the theory of evolution" being real have also problems with defining words. They mix popular usage of words that are mostly wrongly used, with the proper - original sense of the word. If you change the definition of words you can actually prove anything. Actually mathematicians prove 2+2=5 if they define the arithmetics differently. I will say it again, evolution is a fact. Evolution theory is the best scientific theory that explains that fact. There were and are actually different alternatives proposed to explain signs of evolution. The fact of evolutionary change was accepted but the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection, was denied, explanations of evolution such as Lamarckism, catastrophism, orthogenesis, vitalism, structuralism and mutationism (called saltationism before 1900) were entertained. If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed. Say it again. We like it  Since there is no proven fact for evolution... and since all the evidence for evolution can fit creation easier... and since evolution talk is mostly contradictory... and since even the knowledgeable evolutionists admit this... Say it again. We like it You and evolution are a couple of hoaxes. Since there is no proven fact for evolution... I don't know what you mean, evolution is a proven factand since all the evidence for evolution can fit creation easier... Basically no evidence for evolution fits creation in anything, I don't know why you keep saying this idiotic shit. The age of the earth or the universe doesn't fit creationism. If you consider humans to be stand-alone (dropped on earth as we are, not evolving from the created proto-human), there should be something astoundingly unique about us, and biologically, there really isn't. The search has been quite exhaustive. There is literally no evidence supporting creationism.
and since evolution talk is mostly contradictory... If you say soand since even the knowledgeable evolutionists admit this... Sure thing buddy |
|
|
|
Smoke & mirrors, it's probaly a stealth plane towing a banner. Really? That's all you got? You are not even trying anymore, it's clearly not a stealth plane. |
|
|
|
There are at least 2 places in the Bible (one in Isaiah) that tell us that in the next life we will never remember any of this. It will never come to mind. So, it is not that you don't believe in God. Rather, it is that you are angry with Him for not judging things according to the way you think. Don't throw away eternity for yourself. Having the pleasure of some deep anger against God in this life (though I don't see where there is pleasure in anger), is not worth losing your salvation for eternity. Rather, humble yourself, and ask God to comfort you and bring peace to your mind and soul. ''Rather, it is that you are angry with Him for not judging things according to the way you think.'' Actually as you can clearly see from my example above, I'm not angry or happy, it simply makes no sense and it's not fair. What makes it unfair is the unfairness of mankind toward God. God gave His all in Jesus death on the cross. He did it to save mankind. But here you are, not only accepting the imperfection of being sinful in the first place, but extending your imperfection to the rejecting of the great sacrifice Jesus did to save you. You ain't fair. Certainly not to God. God sacrificed himself to himself to forgive us. Another nonsense from the bible right there. It makes absolutely no sense and we are not even saved, we are still here, aren't we? Why did an omniscient and all powerful god need to sacrifice his ''son'' to forgive humanity? Why not just forgive us? What is there to forgive anyways, he already knew everything that would happen. Perfection requires justice. God couldn't just forgive without destroying His Own perfection. The sacrifice of Jesus included the punishment for mankind that would maintain the perfection of God. The perfection of mankind needed to be maintained, because God had judged mankind so extremely good at the time of the creation, that God placed His spirit within mankind. In order to maintain the perfection of His own judgment about mankind, He needed to maintain the perfection of mankind. The perfection having been maintained in the sacrifice of Jesus, mankind is now free to be his own agent... to accept God's perfection for himself, or to reject it. Since God is love, He truly wishes mankind to accept the perfection of Godness or God-likeness. And since God is love and just, He realizes that He must not coerce any man in the judgment that each person makes. There is no way to adequately and properly explain the things that are involved in the salvation of man. Suffice it to say that God is holding the salvation choice open for each person as long as that person lives. And since Jesus was God as well as man, mankind is being brought into God-likeness. Maintaining health is simply man using the strength of God that God has placed in each and every one of us. What the fuck? Imagine I'm God and I know everything that's going to happen. It makes no sense for me to get mad at people I created for things they are going to do if I knew about it beforehand. There is no need to forgive anyone because I already know what's going to happen. If I didn't want that to happen then I wouldn't have created it, no? |
|
|
|
You read my mind. "Paid troll would act the same". I am afraid he is not. That is the saddest part in all that. He thinks he is 100% honest... Sigh...
Which is worse? Knowing you are lying (trolling) or not knowing you are lying (religion). The worst is having a question that makes absolutely no logical sense. Definition of lying means a purposefully and knowingly misinform the person you speak to. You people need to know how to define the words you are using. Otherwise it is just a hot air. It is not just this word. Every word has its boundaries. Like the word of so called "the theory of evolution" have a connotation with creating new specie in a classical sense. That is how the word originated. Sadly - people talking about "the theory of evolution" being real have also problems with defining words. They mix popular usage of words that are mostly wrongly used, with the proper - original sense of the word. If you change the definition of words you can actually prove anything. Actually mathematicians prove 2+2=5 if they define the arithmetics differently. I will say it again, evolution is a fact. Evolution theory is the best scientific theory that explains that fact. There were and are actually different alternatives proposed to explain signs of evolution. The fact of evolutionary change was accepted but the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection, was denied, explanations of evolution such as Lamarckism, catastrophism, orthogenesis, vitalism, structuralism and mutationism (called saltationism before 1900) were entertained. If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed. |
|
|
|
|
Hey you might be right, maybe instead of 99% I should say 95% or ''The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[17][18][19][20][21] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".''
''Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.''
''A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time''
|
|
|
|
Fools believe the compressed gas that is our atmosphere can exist next to a hard vacuum with no barrier. How fucking stupid are you people?
These are the same folks who believe steel renforced concrete buildings will fall down into their own footprint at free fall speeds after airplanes hit them.
You can see satellites and the ISS with a telescope or a Nikon P900. You are now going to ignore this because there is no counter argument so you have to lie. Satellites are just mylar weather balloons and the ISS a high altitude plane, that's what's being filmed. Go fucking kill yourself.  Video closeup of the ISS. Mylar balloonBro, just stop. The ISS is not a plane. You can clearly see its shape lmao. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C4yCynTCmwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJzIQf3nR9ghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sclc5iDyWjEJust stop, you are embarrassing yourself now. |
|
|
|
''Nevertheless God exists, and it is as said in the Bible God cannot lie, so he is the truth.'' The logic of religious folks right there.
>The bible says god cannot lie
>Therefore god cannot lie
> I know this because it is said in the bible
There is 1 major problem, though. How do you know what the bible says is actually real? There are hundreds of other religious books and fictional books just like the bible
How do you know the world is real? You experience it that way right? The same with me and God. I have weird experiences, other people as well... and we all agree its God, as we have no other explanation for our sensations. If you would explain it to me how can I explain my feeling of being loved when there is absolutely no rational explanation for it I am all ears. I might be making that up. But what is the difference if I feel it realisticly? Rational people should try everything, and if there would be a rational reason to believe evolution I would be first to study it. Convince me, or convince yourself to God. Every single religious person would claim the same but with different gods and religions so clearly what you are experiencing can't be real, at all the others must be false but if you acknowledge that possibility then you understand that what you feel might be false as well. Having weird experiences can have a ton of different causes, the brain is capable of producing illusions so real that you could think they are real, that's why there are diseases like schizophrenia and others similar. If you are convinced you know everything and that you would rather believe a doctor rather than yourself - it is your choice. It would be foolish to deny there is some higher force that was not guiding my life, especially when I had a blockades that I just could not do the things I wanted for some ultrastrange reasons. Everyone have such a feelings it is just that the world now nurture people to be extravertic not intravertic to be able to reason their way up to God. Every people regardless of religion have the experiences because everyone is the child of God. Religion using the words of Christ to the scribe said that religion can only block you in your way to the Kingdom of God. He said to him - What is the greatest commandment? The God is one. They both agreed, and Jesus said - you are not far from the Kingdom of God by saying that. So it is not what one do - but all depends on not doing things that separate us from God. It is a love of God regardless of religion and boundaries. Not to mention the dark forces that are in action as well. You think that religious people are having a contact with the spiritual world because of religion. That makes no sense. They are in the religion because of the contact with the spiritual world. ''It would be foolish to deny there is some higher force that was not guiding my life, especially when I had a blockades that I just could not do the things I wanted for some ultrastrange reasons.'' Not knowing the cause of something = god? See, this is the problem with you guys. You are extremely skeptical about evolution, for example, but have no problem believing in a supernatural god that performs miracles that no one has ever seen these days. That's your problem. If you are going to be skeptical, be skeptical about everything, specially of a supernatural god that leaves no evidence behind it. He knows I am a bad bad boy. He knows I am a very sceptical about him  . I am the worst believer ever.... I do not take the word on anything except the words of Jesus. I admitt... I love the words of this guy.... So maybe I am a little bit less sceptical about Jesus... but hey.... He sounds legit - right? And very smart. I do question the dogmas. Actually I have none or maybe two Dogmas - God is One and love your neighbour as yourself. LOL... Religion is of the Satan. Jesus does not require any religious organisation, he requires the things that makes sense and are not a burden to our intelect or moral judgement. What can I say? I need to thank to evolutionists for making fool of themselves. They make it easier for me to not believe in a folly. Thank you very much. If not your mistakes I might be an evolutionist myself. What can I do when I have doubts in my believes I found there is no other sensible explanation, because other explanations are lies? Thanks for confirming my point. ''I do not take the word on anything except the words of Jesus. I admitt... I love the words of this guy.'' You don't even know if the guy existed in the first place. You believe in a supernatural god invented by ancient people because they didn't know better. You also think that the whole scientific community has been fabricating this complex hoax for 100 years. You think somehow they invented evolution and lied about it for 100 years, what the fuck would be the point of that, are you this dumb? You are no different than flat earthers who believe the whole world is a conspiracy and space is fake. Ofcourse I do not think ALL SCIENCE are corrupt, but saying that all science are not corrupt is as foolish as saying that all are corrupt. Is it not? Some are and some are not. If you believe evolution is a hoax you are virtually saying that most science is wrong since evolution is based on a lot of other sciences. You are basically saying that 99% of the scientific community is lying about evolution and all the other sciences that support it, in order to what? What would be the point of this hoax. |
|
|
|
Fools believe the compressed gas that is our atmosphere can exist next to a hard vacuum with no barrier. How fucking stupid are you people?
These are the same folks who believe steel renforced concrete buildings will fall down into their own footprint at free fall speeds after airplanes hit them.
You can see satellites and the ISS with a telescope or a Nikon P900. You are now going to ignore this because there is no counter argument so you have to lie. |
|
|
|
''Nevertheless God exists, and it is as said in the Bible God cannot lie, so he is the truth.'' The logic of religious folks right there.
>The bible says god cannot lie
>Therefore god cannot lie
> I know this because it is said in the bible
There is 1 major problem, though. How do you know what the bible says is actually real? There are hundreds of other religious books and fictional books just like the bible
How do you know the world is real? You experience it that way right? The same with me and God. I have weird experiences, other people as well... and we all agree its God, as we have no other explanation for our sensations. If you would explain it to me how can I explain my feeling of being loved when there is absolutely no rational explanation for it I am all ears. I might be making that up. But what is the difference if I feel it realisticly? Rational people should try everything, and if there would be a rational reason to believe evolution I would be first to study it. Convince me, or convince yourself to God. Every single religious person would claim the same but with different gods and religions so clearly what you are experiencing can't be real, at all the others must be false but if you acknowledge that possibility then you understand that what you feel might be false as well. Having weird experiences can have a ton of different causes, the brain is capable of producing illusions so real that you could think they are real, that's why there are diseases like schizophrenia and others similar. If you are convinced you know everything and that you would rather believe a doctor rather than yourself - it is your choice. It would be foolish to deny there is some higher force that was not guiding my life, especially when I had a blockades that I just could not do the things I wanted for some ultrastrange reasons. Everyone have such a feelings it is just that the world now nurture people to be extravertic not intravertic to be able to reason their way up to God. Every people regardless of religion have the experiences because everyone is the child of God. Religion using the words of Christ to the scribe said that religion can only block you in your way to the Kingdom of God. He said to him - What is the greatest commandment? The God is one. They both agreed, and Jesus said - you are not far from the Kingdom of God by saying that. So it is not what one do - but all depends on not doing things that separate us from God. It is a love of God regardless of religion and boundaries. Not to mention the dark forces that are in action as well. You think that religious people are having a contact with the spiritual world because of religion. That makes no sense. They are in the religion because of the contact with the spiritual world. ''It would be foolish to deny there is some higher force that was not guiding my life, especially when I had a blockades that I just could not do the things I wanted for some ultrastrange reasons.'' Not knowing the cause of something = god? See, this is the problem with you guys. You are extremely skeptical about evolution, for example, but have no problem believing in a supernatural god that performs miracles that no one has ever seen these days. That's your problem. If you are going to be skeptical, be skeptical about everything, specially of a supernatural god that leaves no evidence behind it. He knows I am a bad bad boy. He knows I am a very sceptical about him . I am the worst believer ever.... I do not take the word on anything except the words of Jesus. I admitt... I love the words of this guy.... So maybe I am a little bit less sceptical about Jesus... but hey.... He sounds legit - right? And very smart. I do question the dogmas. Actually I have none or maybe two Dogmas - God is One and love your neighbour as yourself. LOL... Religion is of the Satan. Jesus does not require any religious organisation, he requires the things that makes sense and are not a burden to our intelect or moral judgement. What can I say? I need to thank to evolutionists for making fool of themselves. They make it easier for me to not believe in a folly. Thank you very much. If not your mistakes I might be an evolutionist myself. What can I do when I have doubts in my believes I found there is no other sensible explanation, because other explanations are lies? Thanks for confirming my point. ''I do not take the word on anything except the words of Jesus. I admitt... I love the words of this guy.'' You don't even know if the guy existed in the first place. You believe in a supernatural god invented by ancient people because they didn't know better. You also think that the whole scientific community has been fabricating this complex hoax for 100 years. You think somehow they invented evolution and lied about it for 100 years, what the fuck would be the point of that, are you this dumb? You are no different than flat earthers who believe the whole world is a conspiracy and space is fake. |
|
|
|
There are at least 2 places in the Bible (one in Isaiah) that tell us that in the next life we will never remember any of this. It will never come to mind. So, it is not that you don't believe in God. Rather, it is that you are angry with Him for not judging things according to the way you think. Don't throw away eternity for yourself. Having the pleasure of some deep anger against God in this life (though I don't see where there is pleasure in anger), is not worth losing your salvation for eternity. Rather, humble yourself, and ask God to comfort you and bring peace to your mind and soul. ''Rather, it is that you are angry with Him for not judging things according to the way you think.'' Actually as you can clearly see from my example above, I'm not angry or happy, it simply makes no sense and it's not fair. What makes it unfair is the unfairness of mankind toward God. God gave His all in Jesus death on the cross. He did it to save mankind. But here you are, not only accepting the imperfection of being sinful in the first place, but extending your imperfection to the rejecting of the great sacrifice Jesus did to save you. You ain't fair. Certainly not to God. God sacrificed himself to himself to forgive us. Another nonsense from the bible right there. It makes absolutely no sense and we are not even saved, we are still here, aren't we? Why did an omniscient and all powerful god need to sacrifice his ''son'' to forgive humanity? Why not just forgive us? What is there to forgive anyways, he already knew everything that would happen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
