|
Przemax
|
 |
August 19, 2017, 03:15:03 PM
Last edit: August 19, 2017, 03:27:42 PM by Przemax |
|
The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true. Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again. All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously. Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic? Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science. Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs. And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia. God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point? God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools. You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye. |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
August 19, 2017, 04:57:14 PM |
|
The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true. Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again. All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously. Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic? Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science. Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs. And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia. God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point? God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools. You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye. Oh yea.. ''My proof of validity of God's word is that cow breed cow and thats what been and thats what will'' ''Its not my fault that nowadays scientists are mainly a believers in mathematical scientism. There are many scientific evidences that gravity is electrical and we are living in the electric universe'' Your proofs are laughable at best. http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.htmlhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universeYou can find a ton of articles debunking the pseudo science of the electric universe. Give me a break. You are just like badecker. All established science is wrong to you yet you use a ton of pseudo science to try to prove your points. you are a joke lmao. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3962
Merit: 1380
|
|
August 19, 2017, 05:58:36 PM |
|
The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true. Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again. All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously. Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic? Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science. Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs. And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia. God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point? God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools. You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye. Oh yea.. ''My proof of validity of God's word is that cow breed cow and thats what been and thats what will'' ''Its not my fault that nowadays scientists are mainly a believers in mathematical scientism. There are many scientific evidences that gravity is electrical and we are living in the electric universe'' Your proofs are laughable at best. http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.htmlhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universeYou can find a ton of articles debunking the pseudo science of the electric universe. Give me a break. You are just like badecker. All established science is wrong to you yet you use a ton of pseudo science to try to prove your points. you are a joke lmao. Articles that try to debunk scientific proof for the existence of God, are simply circular logic arguments. But that is all the anti-God scientists have. Scientific proof for God was shown way back at the time of Isaac Newton. It hasn't been debunked, ever. And the fact that it hasn't been debunked after hundreds of thousands of attempts to debunk it, proves that God science is stronger than ever.  |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
August 19, 2017, 06:11:04 PM |
|
The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true. Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again. All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously. Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic? Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science. Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs. And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia. God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point? God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools. You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye. Oh yea.. ''My proof of validity of God's word is that cow breed cow and thats what been and thats what will'' ''Its not my fault that nowadays scientists are mainly a believers in mathematical scientism. There are many scientific evidences that gravity is electrical and we are living in the electric universe'' Your proofs are laughable at best. http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.htmlhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universeYou can find a ton of articles debunking the pseudo science of the electric universe. Give me a break. You are just like badecker. All established science is wrong to you yet you use a ton of pseudo science to try to prove your points. you are a joke lmao. Articles that try to debunk scientific proof for the existence of God, are simply circular logic arguments. But that is all the anti-God scientists have. Scientific proof for God was shown way back at the time of Isaac Newton. It hasn't been debunked, ever. And the fact that it hasn't been debunked after hundreds of thousands of attempts to debunk it, proves that God science is stronger than ever. All your ''scientific'' arguments for the existence of god are simply circular logic arguments. That's all what religious nuts have. Science has disproved the god from the bible many many times. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3962
Merit: 1380
|
|
August 19, 2017, 06:17:16 PM |
|
The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true. Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again. All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously. Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic? Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science. Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs. And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia. God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point? God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools. You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye. Oh yea.. ''My proof of validity of God's word is that cow breed cow and thats what been and thats what will'' ''Its not my fault that nowadays scientists are mainly a believers in mathematical scientism. There are many scientific evidences that gravity is electrical and we are living in the electric universe'' Your proofs are laughable at best. http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.htmlhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universeYou can find a ton of articles debunking the pseudo science of the electric universe. Give me a break. You are just like badecker. All established science is wrong to you yet you use a ton of pseudo science to try to prove your points. you are a joke lmao. Articles that try to debunk scientific proof for the existence of God, are simply circular logic arguments. But that is all the anti-God scientists have. Scientific proof for God was shown way back at the time of Isaac Newton. It hasn't been debunked, ever. And the fact that it hasn't been debunked after hundreds of thousands of attempts to debunk it, proves that God science is stronger than ever. All your ''scientific'' arguments for the existence of god are simply circular logic arguments. That's all what religious nuts have. Science has disproved the god from the bible many many times. Cause and effect is science. Complexity is used by science all over the place. Entropy is scientifically accepted. Together these three things prove that God has to exist. God isn't a "maybe." |
|
|
|
|
yourboss
|
|
August 19, 2017, 08:25:43 PM |
|
A VERY INTERESTING CONVERSATION
An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the Problem Science has with
GOD, the ALMIGHTY. He asked one of his New Christian Students to stand and . . .
Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, you Believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD Good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor : Is GOD ALL - POWERFUL ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : My Brother died of Cancer even though he Prayed to GOD to Heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent )
Professor : You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, Young Fella. Is GOD Good?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor : Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . . .
Professor : That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this World?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor : So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer)
Professor : Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the World, don't they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, who Created them ?
(Student had no answer)
Professor : Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you. Tell me, son . . . Have you ever Seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor : Tell us if you have ever Heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor : Have you ever Felt your GOD, Tasted your GOD, Smelt your GOD?Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor : Yet you still Believe in HIM?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my Faith.
Professor : Yes, Faith. And that is the Problem Science has.
(Here, the student begins to shoot back the professor.)
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?
Professor : Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as Cold?
Professor : Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn't.
(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events )
Student : Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat,a Little Heat or No Heat. But we don't have anything called Cold. We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as Cold. Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat. We cannot Measure Cold. Heat is Energy. Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.
(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre )
Student : What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?
Professor : Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the Absence of Something You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light . . .
But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn't it? In reality, Darkness doesn't exist. If it does, would you be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn't you?
Professor : So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.
Professor : Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality. You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD. You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a Thought. It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing. Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?
Professor : If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going )
Student : Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor, Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir? Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?
(The Class was in Uproar )
Student : Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor's Brain?
(The Class broke out into Laughter )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? . . . No one appears to have done so. So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that You have No Brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?
(The Room was Silent. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)
Professor : I guess you'll have to take them on Faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly ! The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.
That student was Albert Einstein.
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3962
Merit: 1380
|
|
August 19, 2017, 08:45:59 PM |
|
^^^ Are there really any posts in this thread?  |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
August 19, 2017, 08:58:58 PM |
|
The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true. Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again. All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously. Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic? Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science. Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs. And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia. God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point? God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools. You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye. Oh yea.. ''My proof of validity of God's word is that cow breed cow and thats what been and thats what will'' ''Its not my fault that nowadays scientists are mainly a believers in mathematical scientism. There are many scientific evidences that gravity is electrical and we are living in the electric universe'' Your proofs are laughable at best. http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.htmlhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universeYou can find a ton of articles debunking the pseudo science of the electric universe. Give me a break. You are just like badecker. All established science is wrong to you yet you use a ton of pseudo science to try to prove your points. you are a joke lmao. Articles that try to debunk scientific proof for the existence of God, are simply circular logic arguments. But that is all the anti-God scientists have. Scientific proof for God was shown way back at the time of Isaac Newton. It hasn't been debunked, ever. And the fact that it hasn't been debunked after hundreds of thousands of attempts to debunk it, proves that God science is stronger than ever. All your ''scientific'' arguments for the existence of god are simply circular logic arguments. That's all what religious nuts have. Science has disproved the god from the bible many many times. Cause and effect is science. Complexity is used by science all over the place. Entropy is scientifically accepted. Together these three things prove that God has to exist. God isn't a "maybe." Nope, they really don't. I already showed you how: Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088And debunked by me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376Also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684Accept the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Przemax
|
|
August 20, 2017, 08:08:22 AM
Last edit: August 20, 2017, 10:40:23 AM by Przemax |
|
You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for. Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind. Accept the truth. That words are so hypocritical coming from you. You yourself are the proof of God existance. He told that he will send strong delusions. Evolutionist claims that the Bible does not say the truth, yet every birth on this earth, by any living creature is a proof of his word. Evolutionist had found none proof to the contrary. How you judge you will be judged the same. Do you think the God is laughable? God will have the last laugh, if he decided that. You are laughable, when God allowed you to discover that human is closest in dna similiarities with the pig. Hows your theory can explain that? It can not - you have strong delusions and are made a joke.  You say everything is driven by matter, every reaction is mass related. God has send strong delusions on you, becuase your scientific equations are full of patches, constants that "must be" because your equations would not be right. Some miracle made believe constants. You are all so much believing in your mass driven world that you will believe and create lies to hide it. Like different constant of the speed of light every 20 years or so. And that not within a statistical error of 5%, but its multitude of quantity. So it was not an error. God can have a good laugh when your equations is wrong by 95% percent of mass (or more) you have to invent, like stupid dark matter and dark energy, that noone had ever seen for your equations to be even remotely true. Yes you nitpick on electric universe theory that they made some slight error.... You have a strong delusion because your whole mass driven world is 95% false and only 5% correct. Even after a whole book of patches how to make wrong theory right. You know what is 5% in statistic? Statistical error. Congratulations that your predictibility is so low as it can be a statistical error that you guessed wrong or right. You believe more than anyone else on your things that noone ever had seen and noone ever will, yet you hypocriticly claim that someone else is not to be credited because they believe.  And then you hypocriticly says, that bible believers are a joke. Thats a very strong delusions there. Think again if your claims is not just hypocritical hot air. |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
August 20, 2017, 10:55:05 AM |
|
You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for. Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind. Accept the truth. That words are so hypocritical coming from you. You yourself are the proof of God existance. He told that he will send strong delusions. Evolutionist claims that the Bible does not say the truth, yet every birth on this earth, by any living creature is a proof of his word. Evolutionist had found none proof to the contrary. How you judge you will be judged the same. Do you think the God is laughable? God will have the last laugh, if he decided that. You are laughable, when God allowed you to discover that human is closest in dna similiarities with the pig. Hows your theory can explain that? It can not - you have strong delusions and are made a joke. You say everything is driven by matter, every reaction is mass related. God has send strong delusions on you, becuase your scientific equations are full of patches, constants that "must be" because your equations would not be right. Some miracle made believe constants. You are all so much believing in your mass driven world that you will believe and create lies to hide it. Like different constant of the speed of light every 20 years or so. And that not within a statistical error of 5%, but its multitude of quantity. So it was not an error. God can have a good laugh when your equations is wrong by 95% percent of mass (or more) you have to invent, like stupid dark matter and dark energy, that noone had ever seen for your equations to be even remotely true. Yes you nitpick on electric universe theory that they made some slight error.... You have a strong delusion because your whole mass driven world is 95% false and only 5% correct. Even after a whole book of patches how to make wrong theory right. You know what is 5% in statistic? Statistical error. Congratulations that your predictibility is so low as it can be a statistical error that you guessed wrong or right. You believe more than anyone else on your things that noone ever had seen and noone ever will, yet you hypocriticly claim that someone else is not to be credited because they believe. And then you hypocriticly says, that bible believers are a joke. Thats a very strong delusions there. Think again if your claims is not just hypocritical hot air. A lot of talk but still no proof or evidence presented, even if evolution is wrong, the big bang is wrong and everything else is wrong it still doesn't prove god is right. You should understand that. |
|
|
|
|
Przemax
|
|
August 20, 2017, 11:09:35 AM
Last edit: August 20, 2017, 01:07:49 PM by Przemax |
|
You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for. Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind. Accept the truth. That words are so hypocritical coming from you. You yourself are the proof of God existance. He told that he will send strong delusions. Evolutionist claims that the Bible does not say the truth, yet every birth on this earth, by any living creature is a proof of his word. Evolutionist had found none proof to the contrary. How you judge you will be judged the same. Do you think the God is laughable? God will have the last laugh, if he decided that. You are laughable, when God allowed you to discover that human is closest in dna similiarities with the pig. Hows your theory can explain that? It can not - you have strong delusions and are made a joke. You say everything is driven by matter, every reaction is mass related. God has send strong delusions on you, becuase your scientific equations are full of patches, constants that "must be" because your equations would not be right. Some miracle made believe constants. You are all so much believing in your mass driven world that you will believe and create lies to hide it. Like different constant of the speed of light every 20 years or so. And that not within a statistical error of 5%, but its multitude of quantity. So it was not an error. God can have a good laugh when your equations is wrong by 95% percent of mass (or more) you have to invent, like stupid dark matter and dark energy, that noone had ever seen for your equations to be even remotely true. Yes you nitpick on electric universe theory that they made some slight error.... You have a strong delusion because your whole mass driven world is 95% false and only 5% correct. Even after a whole book of patches how to make wrong theory right. You know what is 5% in statistic? Statistical error. Congratulations that your predictibility is so low as it can be a statistical error that you guessed wrong or right. You believe more than anyone else on your things that noone ever had seen and noone ever will, yet you hypocriticly claim that someone else is not to be credited because they believe. And then you hypocriticly says, that bible believers are a joke. Thats a very strong delusions there. Think again if your claims is not just hypocritical hot air. A lot of talk but still no proof or evidence presented, even if evolution is wrong, the big bang is wrong and everything else is wrong it still doesn't prove god is right. You should understand that. And you should understand that there is no scientific theory that is proven right. There are thoeries that are not proven wrong. You can not have certainity with any thoery that its true. Thats not science.  There are not yet enough of hypothesis builded up to make a scientific theory of God. But many of the thesis in the books are not proven to be wrong. Scientists, even those from evolution and big bang or whatever are validating a God thesis (the bible). Scientific theory is based on making a right hypothesis and try to prove its wrong. Its doable to prove its wrong. You have the God thesis that you can easily make into hypothesis, that are falisifiable. The more they try to prove the God thesis is wrong, and they fail to do so, the stronger its validity is. That is called validating by trying to falsify something. You validate God by falsifying your atheistic possitions that are the opposite. Its like saying - that man is not dead, therefore he is alive. So thank you for proving God.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
August 20, 2017, 02:10:29 PM |
|
You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for. Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind. Accept the truth. That words are so hypocritical coming from you. You yourself are the proof of God existance. He told that he will send strong delusions. Evolutionist claims that the Bible does not say the truth, yet every birth on this earth, by any living creature is a proof of his word. Evolutionist had found none proof to the contrary. How you judge you will be judged the same. Do you think the God is laughable? God will have the last laugh, if he decided that. You are laughable, when God allowed you to discover that human is closest in dna similiarities with the pig. Hows your theory can explain that? It can not - you have strong delusions and are made a joke. You say everything is driven by matter, every reaction is mass related. God has send strong delusions on you, becuase your scientific equations are full of patches, constants that "must be" because your equations would not be right. Some miracle made believe constants. You are all so much believing in your mass driven world that you will believe and create lies to hide it. Like different constant of the speed of light every 20 years or so. And that not within a statistical error of 5%, but its multitude of quantity. So it was not an error. God can have a good laugh when your equations is wrong by 95% percent of mass (or more) you have to invent, like stupid dark matter and dark energy, that noone had ever seen for your equations to be even remotely true. Yes you nitpick on electric universe theory that they made some slight error.... You have a strong delusion because your whole mass driven world is 95% false and only 5% correct. Even after a whole book of patches how to make wrong theory right. You know what is 5% in statistic? Statistical error. Congratulations that your predictibility is so low as it can be a statistical error that you guessed wrong or right. You believe more than anyone else on your things that noone ever had seen and noone ever will, yet you hypocriticly claim that someone else is not to be credited because they believe. And then you hypocriticly says, that bible believers are a joke. Thats a very strong delusions there. Think again if your claims is not just hypocritical hot air. A lot of talk but still no proof or evidence presented, even if evolution is wrong, the big bang is wrong and everything else is wrong it still doesn't prove god is right. You should understand that. And you should understand that there is no scientific theory that is proven right. There are thoeries that are not proven wrong. You can not have certainity with any thoery that its true. Thats not science. There are not yet enough of hypothesis builded up to make a scientific theory of God. But many of the thesis in the books are not proven to be wrong. Scientists, even those from evolution and big bang or whatever are validating a God thesis (the bible). Scientific theory is based on making a right hypothesis and try to prove its wrong. Its doable to prove its wrong. You have the God thesis that you can easily make into hypothesis, that are falisifiable. The more they try to prove the God thesis is wrong, and they fail to do so, the stronger its validity is. That is called validating by trying to falsify something. You validate God by falsifying your atheistic possitions that are the opposite. Its like saying - that man is not dead, therefore he is alive. So thank you for proving God. So what is the hypothesis of god then? http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediateThere is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules. The Hardy-Weinberg principle connects the work of Mendel and Darwin, and builds on them to expand our understanding of evolution You think there is such a thing like a spontaneous generation? Like a mage creating a cat from nothing, or what do you mean? I don't know how the law of information systems disproves evolution http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/specified-complexity.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexityhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.htmlhttp://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/Natural law? How does a beneficial mutation disprove evolution? I don't know what generic complexity specifically is but I already showed how complexity does not disprove evolution http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/information-theory.php |
|
|
|
|
Przemax
|
|
August 20, 2017, 03:07:57 PM
Last edit: August 20, 2017, 03:46:03 PM by Przemax |
|
You think there is such a thing like a spontaneous generation? Like a mage creating a cat from nothing, or what do you mean?
Ok that one might be wrong. That was not my meme. I had not put much thought into it. Ok. Some people at the creationism camp are also wrong. Difference between me and you is that I can admitt it. I am stupid that I gave that meme. Forget about it. I don't want to talk about it. You have established ground how to find in your little pseudo scientific swampy. It can take ages, months and years of a silly word games between me and you. My bad. I admitt I should not go into this shaddy ground. Of philosophical word game. Its just a general picture of things. I know that evolutionists spends all day thinking about the asnwers for "yes but...". I regret of talking about your butts. Its just a meme that gives general idea how things are and how evolutionists make "butts" out of it. I know you can say that some brilliant author have discovered a 3rd gender, or something similiar. Pun intended. Violation does not mean something is contradicting its just not fitting to well with all those facts. So what is the hypothesis of god then? A question if God has done x y or z. Thats a hypothesis. If not proven wrong that hypothesis is correct. One can assume how something is done, but for things to be logical one must assume if its factual that something is made, and if its factual that someone that made it can exist. The process of "how it was done" does not have to be true for a statement to be correct. For example - God created a life. How have he made it, does not change the status of statement whether its true or not. Thats an ontological definition of truth. You mix epistemological "how it was made" way of defining the truth and accuse the ontologist that they do not claim to know "how it was made". I can answer, that you it does not matter "how do you think it was made", because there are evidences it could not be done how you claim it is. Such a counter argument is pig having 98% of human dna. Thats an error for a creationist to use epistomological arguments to refute evolutionist. Evolutionist will just use their terminology and confuse the poor creationist by his "but". Epistomological (evolutionist) can claim that something cannot exist because of how something is done, he cannot claim wrong argument that ontologist does not know how something was done. Ontologist does not claim to know (creationist), he is only interested what exist. And the fact that pigs are way closer related to humans than monkeys is ontological claim that it does not matter how something is done, as long as its highly unlikely that it is done like evolutionist claim it happened. For example if you would say that in the last 1000 years 100 kinds became extinct and 1 had come to being. That would be a counter argument to what actualy the creationist claim is their truth. Their truth is that there was no single new kind of animal that came into existance (the key word) after the creation. And the existance and classification of this kind is easily defined (it can breed only with its kind). |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
August 20, 2017, 03:21:25 PM |
|
You think there is such a thing like a spontaneous generation? Like a mage creating a cat from nothing, or what do you mean?
Ok that one might be wrong. That was not my meme. I had not put much thought into it. Ok. Some people at the creationism camp are also wrong. Difference between me and you is that I can admitt it. I am stupid that I gave that meme. Forget about it. I don't want to talk about it. You have established ground how to find in your little pseudo scientific swampy. It can take ages, months and years of a silly word games between me and you. My bad. I admitt I should not go into this shaddy ground. Of philosophical word game. Its just a general picture of things. I know that evolutionists spends all day thinking about the asnwers for "yes but...". I regret of talking about your butts. Its just a meme that gives general idea how things are and how evolutionists make "butts" out of it. I know you can say that some brilliant author have discovered a 3rd gender, or something similiar. Pun intended. Violation does not mean something is contradicting its just not fitting to well with all those facts. So what is the hypothesis of god then? A question if God has done x y or z. Thats a hypothesis. If not proven wrong that hypothesis is correct. One can assume how something is done, but for things to be logical one must assume if its factual that something is made, and if its factual that someone that made it can exist. The process of "how it was done" does not have to be true for a statement to be correct. For example - God created a life. How have he made it, does not change the status of statement whether its true or not. Thats an ontological definition of truth. You mix epistemological "how it was made" way of defining the truth and accuse the ontologist that they do not claim to know "how it was made". I can answer, that you it does not matter "how do you think it was made", because there are evidences it could not be done how you claim it is. Such a counter argument is pig having 98% of human dna. Thats an error for a creationist to use epistomological arguments to refute evolutionist. Saying god created life is the same as saying (Insert any other supreme being) did it. It doesn't get you anywhere. I can't prove God didn't do it just like I can't prove other gods didn't do it. There is still the possibility of none of them doing it anyways. That's not a hypothesis. First of all, what am I supposed to test? Second thing is, where is the evidence leading to the hypothesis. ''Its just a meme that gives general idea how things are and how evolutionists make "butts" out of it'' You see, I give you explanations of why the arguments against evolution are wrong and all you see is evolutionists making ''butts''?? It shows how flawed the arguments against evolution are yet for you it somehow shows that evolution is not true. |
|
|
|
|
bxipp
|
|
August 20, 2017, 03:25:24 PM |
|
we will know the answer after we die. if truth there was hell and heaven the time we has die. so it truth. if not. i dont know either how to say it. scary and deep inside me are scared to wait that time come.fuhh. to find the answer. we will know it someday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Przemax
|
|
August 20, 2017, 03:32:57 PM
Last edit: August 20, 2017, 03:53:37 PM by Przemax |
|
Saying god created life is the same as saying (Insert any other supreme being) did it. It doesn't get you anywhere. I can't prove God didn't do it just like I can't prove other gods didn't do it. There is still the possibility of none of them doing it anyways. That's not a hypothesis. First of all, what am I supposed to test? Second thing is, where is the evidence leading to the hypothesis. If you want to disprove it, its easily done. God have said what did he create and how does it recreate itself. If you prove that the existance of animals is driven by different principles, like how recreation is like you have succesfully proven God could not exist. Thats this easy. You are suppose to test if any animal can "evolve" so much that it can no longer breed with its kind, and you have proven that God of the Bible have not done it. Becuase they have not demonstrated God is not neccessary for new kind of thing to happen. Either its a star or a kind of animal. That was not the case, and in my opinion it will not happen. That proves that evolution did not replace God. By replacing i mean, that evolution had explained that God had not do it. Is that so hard to understand? The big bang theory is connected to that. No single star had been born since we observe and every day new star probably dies somewhere. Hows that makes God obsolete? I would say evidence is to the contrary. Saying god created life is the same as saying (Insert any other supreme being) did it. life is mortal. It dies. So if a God would create beings they all would die by now. What is important is that those creatures reproduce themselves, and thise reproducion is described how it is done so that the life can be maintained classified by their kinds. One kind can breed with another of its kind. Its that simple to prove there is yet another kind of animal. Something brand new that evolved from a known other kind. |
|
|
|
|
|
qwik2learn
|
|
August 20, 2017, 03:46:32 PM |
|
You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for. Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind. The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material. |
|
|
|
|
|
Przemax
|
|
August 20, 2017, 04:00:06 PM |
|
You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for. Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind. The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material. I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification. ''Its just a meme that gives general idea how things are and how evolutionists make "butts" out of it'' You see, I give you explanations of why the arguments against evolution are wrong and all you see is evolutionists making ''butts''?? It shows how flawed the arguments against evolution are yet for you it somehow shows that evolution is not true. We are making circles. All you have proven is that some creationists are stupid. Ok I admitt that. What does that proves? Not much other than that I can admitt being wrong. I just told you I regret of giving you a meme that is just for fun, and you use it against me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
August 20, 2017, 07:13:58 PM |
|
Saying god created life is the same as saying (Insert any other supreme being) did it. It doesn't get you anywhere. I can't prove God didn't do it just like I can't prove other gods didn't do it. There is still the possibility of none of them doing it anyways. That's not a hypothesis. First of all, what am I supposed to test? Second thing is, where is the evidence leading to the hypothesis. If you want to disprove it, its easily done. God have said what did he create and how does it recreate itself. If you prove that the existance of animals is driven by different principles, like how recreation is like you have succesfully proven God could not exist. Thats this easy. You are suppose to test if any animal can "evolve" so much that it can no longer breed with its kind, and you have proven that God of the Bible have not done it. Becuase they have not demonstrated God is not neccessary for new kind of thing to happen. Either its a star or a kind of animal. That was not the case, and in my opinion it will not happen. That proves that evolution did not replace God. By replacing i mean, that evolution had explained that God had not do it. Is that so hard to understand? The big bang theory is connected to that. No single star had been born since we observe and every day new star probably dies somewhere. Hows that makes God obsolete? I would say evidence is to the contrary. Saying god created life is the same as saying (Insert any other supreme being) did it. life is mortal. It dies. So if a God would create beings they all would die by now. What is important is that those creatures reproduce themselves, and thise reproducion is described how it is done so that the life can be maintained classified by their kinds. One kind can breed with another of its kind. Its that simple to prove there is yet another kind of animal. Something brand new that evolved from a known other kind. To ''disprove'' something, you would need to prove it first. You simply do not understand what it means to prove something. You are basically saying that I can claim anything and it's true unless you are able to prove me wrong, it doesn't work like that. ''God have said what did he create and how does it recreate itself'' How do you know? How do you know God has said any of that? Can you prove how animals are generated from nothing? Or instantly which is what god supposedly did? ''If you prove that the existence of animals is driven by different principles'' Well so far I don't think anyone has seen an animal appear from nowhere, so I guess I disproved god? |
|
|
|
|
