If Jesus Is God

[mymistake]

 

See?

 

If Elijah can cut all 450 of them a bit of slack, shouldn't we do same for just 1 Christian?

 

 

 

 

Elijah had those priests killed.  That is something I would never do to a Christian.  They might find it uncomfortable to think but that discomfort from forcing them to think is the worst I would do.  Besides Elijah cheated by using oil and calling it water.  

 

"See?  I pored those massive jars of 'water' over my alter and it burst into tall flames as if I had used oil.  That proves my gods are real."

[Guest OldSeer]

 

One cannot be human and animal at the same time. At any given moment one can be one or the other but not both. No one be humane and inhumane to another at the same time. Nope. each has to be momentary. Rapidly changing form one to the other does not combine the two. Try being humane and inhumane at the same time. If you can't do it--we're right.

 

--

 

So if I'm walking down the street and I see some guy hitting an old lady and trying to steal her purse and I run up to help and the purse snatcher starts hitting me so I knock the crap out of him until the police arrive I have been humane to the old lady by being inhumane to the purse snatcher. Correct? Humane and inhumane at the same time.

 

What if some crack addict is getting ready to smoke some crack and I run up and take it away from him? Then I put him in handcuffs and take him to a room where he is locked inside and has to detox for a few days. I'm being humane by simultaneously being inhumane (as far as the crack addict is concerned).

 

--

 

One thing your humane vs inhumane concept doesn't seem to address is the infinite number of degrees between 100% humane-ness and 100% inhumane-ness. Unless your proposition is for us to accept a false dichotomy, you might want to reconsider. Black and white thinking is cult thinking.

 

Maybe you could answer me this: What is wrong with my current world view/religion/philosophy that I should be studying yours? You really don't know any of us personally yet you have this philosophy you present then you tell us to "go investigate it. Learn it. It will all 'soak in after time.'" lol. Everyone has a particular world view. I have my own and while I might share it, it probably doesn't work for anyone but me. Why does your world view/religion/philosophy have to work for me? I think it's just your pride that promotes your philosophy.

 

I'm happy with my own world view/religion/philosophy. It works great for me.

 

--

 

And now for a tiny bit of wisdom: There will always be assholes. So there will always be inhumane activity.

 

Your philosophy may be nice but well, society beat you to it. Most people are raised to be humane. Or what they think is humane. Do you eat meat? Inhumane. You drive a gas guzzling RV, polluting the air I breathe. Inhumane. Middle East wars where lots of people die are fought to keep control of oil that fuels your RV. Inhumane. Is there any wood in your RV? Deforestation is inhumane. And what about the poor spotted owls that are displaced so YOU can drive down the highway. Inhumane. Do you swat at mosquitos? You heartless animal. :-)

 

Well OK. I got a note from Alpha Smurf <----that autta set a few of you off  saying I should answer this --because according to them your smiley face at the end shows "Humane" intent. That's not meant to be negative. But--about the tree cutting part---I'll have to cut wood today because my wood pile is down and it's really on the cold side  around here in WI. So,I have to deal with that today, and I'll look over  your post. You've got excellent and valid questions. I will make the post later tonight or tomorrow. So, at the risk of being a troll I go head anyway. I will be a long post and take time.Some posts I make take several hours.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Another great post by BAA that gets ignored by all the Christians.  Come on Christians.  You communicate with an all knowing God.  How can you all be so easy to stump by misguided mortals.

 

 

Give him time, MM.  Give the Funguy some time.

.

.

.

 

Elijah gave the prophets of Baal plenty of time (all morning, all afternoon and the evening) to get their god to show up!

 

^{1 Kings 18 : 20 - 29, NIV.}

 

 ²⁰ So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel.

²¹ Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”

But the people said nothing.

²² Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets.

²³ Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it.

²⁴ Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”

Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”

²⁵ Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.”

²⁶ So they took the bull given them and prepared it.

Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

²⁷ At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

²⁸ So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed.

²⁹ Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

.

.

.

See?

 

If Elijah can cut all 450 of them a bit of slack, shouldn't we do same for just 1 Christian?

.

.

.

 

Anyway, the Funguy's computer could still be fubar, causing him to see the E-word in my posts, when it isn't there.  Or maybe it'll play havoc with his cut-and-paste function, causing him to misquote me, quote me out of context or to quote only carefully selected parts of my posts?  Perhaps it'll even cause him to focus only on the scripture I've quoted today or to introduce new pieces of scripture or even some YEC pseudo-science?

 

His computer glitch seems to be preventing him from giving me a straight answer to the question I put to him yesterday. 

 

 

So let's give the man some time to get his **** together, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Time may not be the problem, BAA.  Before funguyrye left the first time, he mentioned that he might only post when the big fella upstairs led him to (I forget exactly how he phrased it, but that's the jist).  When you think about it, that's an even better excuse than Clay's "I'm under no obligation to answer", because funguy can claim he wanted to answer but jesus wouldn't let him.

 

I can see it now:

 

"Dear BAA, I was going to respond by letting you know that the Hebrew letter 'heth' as used in the book of Job can be translated as '600' and since this letter is used 5 times in 2 verses we can easily multiply 600x5x2 and get 6,000 for the number of years the earth has existed.  Like I said, I was going to offer this response, but the big man in the sky told me not to."

[Ravenstar]

(snicker)

[RogueScholar]

 

I have yet to see anything about the whole thermodynamics for God argument. No need for PM's here. If you have an understanding of thermodynamics then back your assertions up in front of everybody. As stated, I have had to take a bit of thermodynamics and kinetics, so I am quite interested to see your thoughts on these ideas. With that said, deflections like telling me you will believe when I can explain "x" definitively simply will not work.  The onus is on you to illuminate us with your apparently well-versed understanding of this subject and make us change our minds. Of course, you can always tell the truth and bow out by saying you do not really understand what these concepts are really saying about the universe. Don't worry, this stuff can be very difficult to understand and quite non-intuitive. There is no shame in admitting ignorance; I have done it more than a couple of times during my short tenure on this site.

 

Then again, faith and religion is all about running away from the possibility of admitting one's ignornace...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

You weren't convinced by his Aleph Tav argument, Rogue?  How closed-minded of you.

[mymistake]

When scientists uncover the definitive evidence on the moon's formation I wonder what new excuse Christians will dream up for not believing science.

[Ravenstar]

If you are going to present scientific ideas here, citations please…so we can reference your sources... and what does the moon have to do with the science BAA presented? There are many ways a planet can acquire a satellite… it can form with it during the congealing of the accretion disk of the sun… it can be captured as an asteroid or dwarf planet in a planet's gravity well, it can be the result of a collision with another celestial object…

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

 

Crikey, we just found out that the outer ring of Saturn is formed from the output of geysers on Enceladus.

 

Has nothing to do with what BAA postulated.

[Storm]

 

Hello again Funguyrye!

 

It looks as if the cut-and-paste function of your computer has a glitch, because you replied to me like this...

 

 

Funguyrye,

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS:

 

Can you accept this?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

I greatly concur with this statement.  There is false knowledge that is producing false results.  One of those is evolution.  Evolutionists want us to accept something that is not observable with our eyes.  They say, "I know that is what you see, but billions of years ago..." with no evidence to support that conclusion.  This theory has become so trampled on and disproved that scientists to absolutely want to reject the premise of an intelligent designer, have produced even far more ridiculous theories such as "Punctuated Equilibrium."  Now who is the one operating with no evidence?  I know God said like kind produces like kind, but we have come up with a theory that is so beyond ridiculous...well, it just makes the theory of evolution look believable due to the absurdity of it all.  Which lie will be more believable?  Just tell a whopper so the first lie will be palatable. 

 

 

...when the full content of my post looks like this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted 07 December 2013 - 08:52 AM

Funguyrye,

 

I can see that asking you to answer a scientific question, using only science was an error on my part.  I apologize for that.  Clearly science is not your comfort zone, even though everyone of us uses and lives by the application of science, every day of our lives.  Not a problem.  I can see that it's important for some people to ignore, reject or deny that science describes a reality where there is no God.

 

However, I can still see a way forward for us.

 

Working on the assumption that you'd accept the following premise, I'd like to put another question to you.  One that should banish any doubts you have about the ability of science to produce true results.  The premise runs like this...

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS:

 

Now, assuming that you accept this, please follow this link.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB

 

Please look at the section entitled, `Features' and look at the diagram on the right.  You don't need to understand the technicalities involved, only this...

 

"...the error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve."

 

...which I shall explain.

 

Scientists made a prediction (based upon their knowledge of how the universe works), saying that their instruments would detect radiation from the origin of the universe and this radiation would follow a certain curve.  Ok, so far?  

When they took the measurements, the observed radiation curve was IDENTICAL to their prediction.

It was IMPOSSIBLE to find any errors or differences between theory and observation.

Their theory matched with their observations... PERFECTLY.

Their true knowledge gave them a true answer.

 

.

.

.

Now, if you've accepted the premise and the validity of my worked example you should also accept that science gives us true knowledge about reality.  My question to you is this.

 

 

Can you accept this?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What's happened is that you've supplied an answer, but not to the question I put to you.

 

You've cut-and-pasted only the text I've highlighted in red, leaving out the rest of my post.

 

I asked no question about evolution.

 

If you look closely, you'll see that my post doesn't contain the word, 'evolution' at all.  Anywhere.

 

Now, it's entirely possible that you're computer is ok and that we are simply not communicating.

 

Whatever the problem between us is, I'll take the time and effort to make sure that you DO understand what I'm asking you.

 

To that end I'll rephrase my one and only question (which has nothing to do with evolution ) and then take the appropriate steps to make sure that you see it.

 

This will result in the question appearing in this thread and also being copied to you via the Private Messaging system.

 

I'll also be sending it to a number of other members, politely requesting that they forward it on to you.

 

This belt-and-braces approach should ensure that you DO see my question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Unfortunately, your cohorts have not stepped up to the plate and sent any PM's.  I did read your post, and did take the time to read, and even tried to understand the funny science associated with making a roundabout figure of the universe being 13 or some billion years.  This "science" sure seems swell, but then I started exploring things like the moon, Roche Limit, tides, stuff like that.  What I found fascinating, that scientists cannot even agree on how the moon was formed.  Some assume and have theorized the moon was formed by the Giant Impact Theory, among a few other theories and baseless assumptions.

 

My point is, you want me to believe this junk science into the creation of the universe can be proven with that method you posted a link to, when science cannot even agree on, much less prove on how the closest object to us was formed?  And I am the one operating on mythology and fantasy?  Please.  When your science can definitively prove, and agree on how the moon was formed, then maybe I will start paying attention. 

 

Sorry for cut and pasting your post and maybe misrepresenting what you were saying.

 

So just because you don't see where science agrees as to why something happened, so you default to "God" must have made it? How is what you say any different than Christian God created the universe this way and Mormon God created it a different way and so on and so forth. Science cant agree and spiritual people cant agree, so your way is the default way to believe? That makes a whole lot of sense. Not! You obviously lack the credentials of even basic scientific understanding to be able to understand anything that BAA or the others have presented to you. The most simple explanation as to how old the universe is is to just go outside and look at the stars. The closest star (outside our solar system) to our planet is still 4.25 light years away. But the vast majority of stars are much, much farther away, as in millions of light years away. So the light that you see is millions of years old. This doesn't take any significant amount of scientific knowledge to comprehend. There is no way possible that the earth is only 6-7 thousand years old. This debunks the very premise of the creation story, that creation occurred in 7 days. From there, if you cant trust the very first point, how can you reliably trust any of the rest of it? Using the same method you use of discarding everything that you or science can't definitively prove, you need to follow suit and dismiss the creation story as well. Leaving only science to provide anything of any substantive value for providing answers. But, you lack the desire to actually do the research and actually study the things that BAA, Professor and Ravenstar and others have spent many years studying and drawing educated conclusions based on the time they spent. I can guarantee that you have not even remotely approached the amount of study they have done and yet you simply dismiss what they say and provide as evidence because you read somewhere that a few scientists disagree on the exact reason the moon came into existence. How arrogant and utterly stupid of you to do so! You are the very antithesis of what a Christian is and should be. You make no friends and will win no battles with such an attitude.

 

 

You must be a prophet.  You stole my line.  I have nothing else to add to this site I guess.  Time to say goodbye.

 

I think you never added anything and simply showed everyone here that you "had a lot of zeal, but not according to knowledge" as Paul described the Israelites in Romans 10:1-2. So I bid you farewell and hope you finally get a grip on reality and see the truth without the god colored glasses you are wearing.

[bdp]

The bugger got his ass handed to him and is now tucking his tail and running.  Predictable and hilarious.  Although what he meant by nothing 'else' to add I have no idea, unless he meant hilarity.

[pawn]

The Universe is over 13 billion years old.  It is a fact.  Just because you don't understand the complex astronomical measurements of the speed of light, and the expansion rate of the galaxies moving away from eachother, doesn't make it "funny science".  It is basic known fact, among ALL scientists.  Ask any astronomer or cosmologist, or theoretical physicist EXACTLY how old the Universe is, and they will all give you the same answer with NO hesitation.  Because they have seen the evidence, and they have done the math, and ALL SCIENTISTS agree, because the evidence and the math always agree, it can be tested over and over and over, with the SAME EXACT RESULT.  Because it is a fact of reality of our Universe.

 

Check source Here: (these are christians, it is a christian website, but they ACCEPT SCIENTIFIC FACTS)

http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe

 

Conclusion

Many different and complementary scientific measurements have established with near certainty that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old. Layers in glaciers show a history much longer than 10,000 years, and radiometric dating places the formation of the Earth at 4.5 billion years. Light from galaxies is reaching us billions of years after it left, and the expansion rate of the universe dates its age to 13.7 billion years. These are just a sampling of the types of evidence for the great age of the Earth and the universe; see the resources below for more.

 

 

 

Now, you can hide your head in the sand, and pretend the bible is a more accurate description of reality, or you can ACCEPT SCIENTIFIC DATA, just like many millions of christians already have.  Fortunately, not all christians are ignorant of science, and many of the them understand and accept that the Universe is billions of years old, among many other scientific facts, such as evolution.  Many christians just accept that Genesis creation story is just an allegory, but they still have faith in god.  There is no need to be ignorant to keep your faith.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

The bugger got his ass handed to him and is now tucking his tail and running.  Predictable and hilarious.  Although what he meant by nothing 'else' to add I have no idea, unless he meant hilarity.

Well no, not really.  You see, I am THAT guest that says good bye, but doesn't leave after a late night at friends.  Just think of me as the one standing at the front porch wanting to continue on the discussion and arguments from earlier in the night.  I am that person.  Would just be simpler and easier by pouring me another glass of wine and get a room ready for me to stay the night. 

 

Well can you hurry it up?  I'm planning on getting laid tonight!  And hell no, you can't stay over.  Man law, dude!  Respect it.

[mymistake]

 

The bugger got his ass handed to him and is now tucking his tail and running.  Predictable and hilarious.  Although what he meant by nothing 'else' to add I have no idea, unless he meant hilarity.

Well no, not really.  You see, I am THAT guest that says good bye, but doesn't leave after a late night at friends.  Just think of me as the one standing at the front porch wanting to continue on the discussion and arguments from earlier in the night.  I am that person.  Would just be simpler and easier by pouring me another glass of wine and get a room ready for me to stay the night. 

 

 

 

Yes, really.  You did get your ass handed to you.  Instead of admitting that you don't have answers you moved the goal post and stopped participating.  Now you want to hang out here but not participate and not admit you don't have answers.  Wow, you sure fooled us into thinking you won.  You so victorious.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Unfortunately, your cohorts have not stepped up to the plate and sent any PM's. 

 

 

Fortune (good or ill) has nothing to do with it, FGR.

 

They are not my cohorts, btw.  They are not anyone's cohorts.  Asking them politely to forward said message to you would have been a measure I might have considered taking, after giving you enough time.  They could have refused to do so - because they are not my cohorts.  Clear?

 

I did read your post, and did take the time to read, and even tried to understand the funny science associated with making a roundabout figure of the universe being 13 or some billion years.  This "science" sure seems swell, but then I started exploring things like the moon, Roche Limit, tides, stuff like that.  What I found fascinating, that scientists cannot even agree on how the moon was formed.  Some assume and have theorized the moon was formed by the Giant Impact Theory, among a few other theories and baseless assumptions.

 

As you well know, my question to you has nothing to do with any disagreements between scientists.  That is simply a smokescreen you've thrown up today to deflect things away from the question I put to you.  This one...

 

Funguyrye, do you accept that the true age of the universe is 13.82 billion years?

 

...remember?  

You cut-and-pasted it into your evasive reply to me at 2:39 today, in post #609. 

 

My point is, you want me to believe this junk science into the creation of the universe can be proven with that method you posted a link to, when science cannot even agree on, much less prove on how the closest object to us was formed?  And I am the one operating on mythology and fantasy?  Please.  When your science can definitively prove, and agree on how the moon was formed, then maybe I will start paying attention. 

 

Your point is mistaken because I don't want you to believe anything. 

Your belief is irrelevant.  I've already got what I need from you.  You unwittingly handed it to me when you said that you greatly concurred with this statement.

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS.

 

By agreeing with this you've unwittingly impaled yourself on the sharpened spike of pure logic I prepared for you.  No matter how much you wriggle, bluff and bluster, there's no escape for you ...unless you retract your agreement.  To be honest, I doubt you'll do that, because that would mean too great a loss of face on your part. 

 

Sorry for cut and pasting your post and maybe misrepresenting what you were saying.

 

We both know what really happened and the folks here recognize a dodge when they see one.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS.

 

Funguyrye wrote... "I greatly concur with this statement."

.

.

.

 

Historical Fact # 1

Scientists predicted that light from the early universe would trace out a certain curve, when plotted on a graph.

 

Historical Fact # 2

Using their knowledge, they predicted that the universe is 13.82 billion years old.

 

Historical Fact # 3

The curve of the observed light matched their predictions exactly...with 100% accuracy.

 

Logical Conclusion # 1

If their prediction was false, the curvature of the observed light would not have matched their prediction exactly.

This is because false knowledge cannot give true answers.

Funguyrye concurs with this, as quoted above.

 

Logical Conclusion # 2

Since their prediction and the observation match up exactly, they must have true knowledge of the universe's age.

Only true knowledge can give true answers.

To be logically consistent, Funguyrye must concur with the previous sentence.

 

Logical Conclusion # 3

Therefore, the true age of the universe is 13.82 billion years.

To be logically consistent, Funguyrye must concur with the previous sentence.

.

.

.

Question

 

Funguyrye, do you accept that the true age of the universe is 13.82 billion years?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

See above post

 

 

Nice dodge.

[bornagainathiest]

 

The bugger got his ass handed to him and is now tucking his tail and running.  Predictable and hilarious.  Although what he meant by nothing 'else' to add I have no idea, unless he meant hilarity.

Well no, not really.  You see, I am THAT guest that says good bye, but doesn't leave after a late night at friends.  Just think of me as the one standing at the front porch wanting to continue on the discussion and arguments from earlier in the night.  I am that person.  Would just be simpler and easier by pouring me another glass of wine and get a room ready for me to stay the night. 

 

 

This Lion hunts down, kills and eats Christians.  (Check out my profile page.)

 

I'll be changing that page soon by adding your name to my 'Kill' list. 

 

Stick around if you like, but as bdp aptly put it - if you do, you'll just get your ass handed to you...  again. 

 

YEC's are such easy meat.

 

(Burp!) 

[Realist]

 

The bugger got his ass handed to him and is now tucking his tail and running.  Predictable and hilarious.  Although what he meant by nothing 'else' to add I have no idea, unless he meant hilarity.

Well no, not really.  You see, I am THAT guest that says good bye, but doesn't leave after a late night at friends.  Just think of me as the one standing at the front porch wanting to continue on the discussion and arguments from earlier in the night.  I am that person.  Would just be simpler and easier by pouring me another glass of wine and get a room ready for me to stay the night. 

 

...maybe you should have done your homework better ... read a few de-conversion stories in here .... found out how a few of these people have suffered at the hands of your EVIL, VILE version of religion before you came in here guns blazing?

 

So you did not find this a great place for ministry? Maybe go tell your friends ... who probably have minds just as closed as yours too! 

 

I tend to agree with bdp on this ... your types do not know what honesty is ... when you hit a wall ... bullshit out of it ... then fuck off! 

[sdelsolray]

…

My point is, you want me to believe this junk science into the creation of the universe can be proven with that method you posted a link to, when science cannot even agree on, much less prove on how the closest object to us was formed?  And I am the one operating on mythology and fantasy?  Please.  When your science can definitively prove, and agree on how the moon was formed, then maybe I will start paying attention. 

…

 

You have a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy of science and of the scientific method, along with the various scientific theories and laws which populate the different scientific disciplines.  

 

Simply put, with the exception of logic and mathematics, science proves nothing.  It merely provides explanations (scientific theories) and descriptions (scientific laws) that fit all available relevant evidence.  I am simply stunned that there are adults that do not understand the basic reality and operational premise of science.

 

Shame on you for remaining so willfully ignorant.  And, you seem proud of your willful ignorance.

 

Your religious indoctrination and need to adhere to it must have been, and still remains, very strong.  Too bad for you.  You have my sympathies.

[Guest OldSeer]

 

One cannot be human and animal at the same time. At any given moment one can be one or the other but not both. No one be humane and inhumane to another at the same time. Nope. each has to be momentary. Rapidly changing form one to the other does not combine the two. Try being humane and inhumane at the same time. If you can't do it--we're right.

 

--

 

So if I'm walking down the street and I see some guy hitting an old lady and trying to steal her purse and I run up to help and the purse snatcher starts hitting me so I knock the crap out of him until the police arrive I have been humane to the old lady by being inhumane to the purse snatcher. Correct? Humane and inhumane at the same time.

 

What if some crack addict is getting ready to smoke some crack and I run up and take it away from him? Then I put him in handcuffs and take him to a room where he is locked inside and has to detox for a few days. I'm being humane by simultaneously being inhumane (as far as the crack addict is concerned).

 

--

 

One thing your humane vs inhumane concept doesn't seem to address is the infinite number of degrees between 100% humane-ness and 100% inhumane-ness. Unless your proposition is for us to accept a false dichotomy, you might want to reconsider. Black and white thinking is cult thinking.

 

Maybe you could answer me this: What is wrong with my current world view/religion/philosophy that I should be studying yours? You really don't know any of us personally yet you have this philosophy you present then you tell us to "go investigate it. Learn it. It will all 'soak in after time.'" lol. Everyone has a particular world view. I have my own and while I might share it, it probably doesn't work for anyone but me. Why does your world view/religion/philosophy have to work for me? I think it's just your pride that promotes your philosophy.

 

I'm happy with my own world view/religion/philosophy. It works great for me.

 

--

 

And now for a tiny bit of wisdom: There will always be assholes. So there will always be inhumane activity.

 

Your philosophy may be nice but well, society beat you to it. Most people are raised to be humane. Or what they think is humane. Do you eat meat? Inhumane. You drive a gas guzzling RV, polluting the air I breathe. Inhumane. Middle East wars where lots of people die are fought to keep control of oil that fuels your RV. Inhumane. Is there any wood in your RV? Deforestation is inhumane. And what about the poor spotted owls that are displaced so YOU can drive down the highway. Inhumane. Do you swat at mosquitos? You heartless animal. :-)

 

What I'm going to do is make this post out on wordpad and copy and paste. Your first example is more complex then you realize.I see three possibilities that need explaining. And, the grand kids are about and they use my unit here because theirs in the house is real junk. I may have to wait for an answer from the Smufs if I need to ask them a question and that can take hours to a day. As I said---my posts on this subject can take time.

[bdp]

Doe this guy not understand what being on 'ignore' means? If you hadn't quoted him I'd have no idea he was still trying to address me.  fungi - YOU'RE ON IGNORE. I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY TO YOU AND AM NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY.

[midniterider]

 

Hello again Funguyrye!

 

It looks as if the cut-and-paste function of your computer has a glitch, because you replied to me like this...

 

 

Funguyrye,

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS:

 

Can you accept this?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

I greatly concur with this statement.  There is false knowledge that is producing false results.  One of those is evolution.  Evolutionists want us to accept something that is not observable with our eyes.  They say, "I know that is what you see, but billions of years ago..." with no evidence to support that conclusion.  This theory has become so trampled on and disproved that scientists to absolutely want to reject the premise of an intelligent designer, have produced even far more ridiculous theories such as "Punctuated Equilibrium."  Now who is the one operating with no evidence?  I know God said like kind produces like kind, but we have come up with a theory that is so beyond ridiculous...well, it just makes the theory of evolution look believable due to the absurdity of it all.  Which lie will be more believable?  Just tell a whopper so the first lie will be palatable. 

 

 

...when the full content of my post looks like this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted 07 December 2013 - 08:52 AM

Funguyrye,

 

I can see that asking you to answer a scientific question, using only science was an error on my part.  I apologize for that.  Clearly science is not your comfort zone, even though everyone of us uses and lives by the application of science, every day of our lives.  Not a problem.  I can see that it's important for some people to ignore, reject or deny that science describes a reality where there is no God.

 

However, I can still see a way forward for us.

 

Working on the assumption that you'd accept the following premise, I'd like to put another question to you.  One that should banish any doubts you have about the ability of science to produce true results.  The premise runs like this...

 

IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR FALSE KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE TRUE ANSWERS; THEN THIS FALSE KNOWLEDGE MUST ALWAYS GIVE FALSE ANSWERS:

 

Now, assuming that you accept this, please follow this link.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB

 

Please look at the section entitled, `Features' and look at the diagram on the right.  You don't need to understand the technicalities involved, only this...

 

"...the error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve."

 

...which I shall explain.

 

Scientists made a prediction (based upon their knowledge of how the universe works), saying that their instruments would detect radiation from the origin of the universe and this radiation would follow a certain curve.  Ok, so far?  

When they took the measurements, the observed radiation curve was IDENTICAL to their prediction.

It was IMPOSSIBLE to find any errors or differences between theory and observation.

Their theory matched with their observations... PERFECTLY.

Their true knowledge gave them a true answer.

 

.

.

.

Now, if you've accepted the premise and the validity of my worked example you should also accept that science gives us true knowledge about reality.  My question to you is this.

 

 

Can you accept this?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What's happened is that you've supplied an answer, but not to the question I put to you.

 

You've cut-and-pasted only the text I've highlighted in red, leaving out the rest of my post.

 

I asked no question about evolution.

 

If you look closely, you'll see that my post doesn't contain the word, 'evolution' at all.  Anywhere.

 

Now, it's entirely possible that you're computer is ok and that we are simply not communicating.

 

Whatever the problem between us is, I'll take the time and effort to make sure that you DO understand what I'm asking you.

 

To that end I'll rephrase my one and only question (which has nothing to do with evolution ) and then take the appropriate steps to make sure that you see it.

 

This will result in the question appearing in this thread and also being copied to you via the Private Messaging system.

 

I'll also be sending it to a number of other members, politely requesting that they forward it on to you.

 

This belt-and-braces approach should ensure that you DO see my question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Unfortunately, your cohorts have not stepped up to the plate and sent any PM's.  I did read your post, and did take the time to read, and even tried to understand the funny science associated with making a roundabout figure of the universe being 13 or some billion years.  This "science" sure seems swell, but then I started exploring things like the moon, Roche Limit, tides, stuff like that.  What I found fascinating, that scientists cannot even agree on how the moon was formed.  Some assume and have theorized the moon was formed by the Giant Impact Theory, among a few other theories and baseless assumptions.

 

My point is, you want me to believe this junk science into the creation of the universe can be proven with that method you posted a link to, when science cannot even agree on, much less prove on how the closest object to us was formed?  And I am the one operating on mythology and fantasy?  Please.  When your science can definitively prove, and agree on how the moon was formed, then maybe I will start paying attention. 

 

Sorry for cut and pasting your post and maybe misrepresenting what you were saying.

 

 

Scientists don't have all the answers...therefore Jesus... or FSM, or Unicorns.

[midniterider]

 

  What I found fascinating, that scientists cannot even agree on how the moon was formed.  Some assume and have theorized the moon was formed by the Giant Impact Theory, among a few other theories and baseless assumptions.

 

My point is, you want me to believe this junk science into the creation of the universe can be proven with that method you posted a link to, when science cannot even agree on, much less prove on how the closest object to us was formed?  And I am the one operating on mythology and fantasy?  Please.  When your science can definitively prove, and agree on how the moon was formed, then maybe I will start paying attention. 

 

Sorry for cut and pasting your post and maybe misrepresenting what you were saying.

 

 

What I find fascinating is that religious leaders cannot even agree on religious doctrine. There are Pentecostals, Lutherans, Episcopals, Presbyterians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, etc etc etc... and each one thinks all the others are baloney.

 

You want me to believe this junk religion when religious people can't even agree on what to believe in? At least science gets to observe something instead of just make up bullshit and pass it off as reality the way Christians do.

 

--

 

"When your science can definitively prove, and agree on how the moon was formed, then maybe I will start paying attention."

 

You want science to have all the evidence and answers before you'll accept it, but you'll fully accept Jesus on faith only. Interesting double standard.

 

(Now Mrs Funguyrye's motherly voice pops into his head  as it has throughout his life and says, "Little Funguyrye, you know what I've told you to tell people who don't believe in Jesus. You just say 'You're wrong, stupid non-believers!' We've always believed in Jesus in our family because....well, we just have...and we always will." )

[RogueScholar]

Also, there is near universal agreement on the general process that led to the formation of the moon. Looking "big picture," our solar system formed from the collapse of a molecular cloud due to gravitation attraction. This ended up creating the solar system that we know and love today. It is true that some of the specific processes are still being debated, but the general process of how everything came into being is not being debated.

 

This process is not baseless and in fact, we observe similar events occurring throughout the universe and everywhere we look, the laws that govern this universe appear to be intact and self consistent. It is pretty powerful to see that Hydrogen on the other side of the galaxy has the same emission and absorption spectrum as Hydrogen right here on earth. It means the electrons in those Hydrogen atoms inhabits the same energy levels as the electrons in the Hydrogen atoms here on Earth. What an incredible observation, what a powerful thing to experience. To anybody with any intellectual integrity, this is far from baseless.

 

As I have asked in other posts, please feel free to present an alternative hypothesis that makes predictions that we can test if you think you have a better idea. As before, I will leave the option of admitting your ignorance open as well, should you choose to embrace a bit of intellectual integrity and honesty.

[RogueScholar]

I'm still waiting to have that thermodynamics discussion or was the statement above an admission of ignorance? That's okay if it is the case; however, you will have to take back your prior statements regarding the concepts at hand.

[Realist]

... very interesting ... when YOU get stuck ... you resort to the more subtle get out verses.

 

Like your last verses:

 

The bible says ... I will get the last laugh ... you will burn in hell!

 

Nice people you fundies arn't you! That is why I regard you with the same disdain I would a child molester!

 

You have not learnt a damn thing since you have been here have you? Neither did YOU intend to!