The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Sorry, but everything has a begining.

That's because you're only familiar with things that come and go. There is an eternal aspect that has always existed. If that were not true, then nothing could exist. Because something does not come from nothing.

Sorry, but quantum mechanics opens up another host of theories regarding the universe.

The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics insists on the conscious observer as the main focal point of reality. Making it obvious that matter could not have created consciousness (as is suggested by evolution). Material reductionism and all that goes along with it is dead; a sinking ship that some will cling to into the darkness of the waters.

a reply to: cooperton

That's because you're only familiar with things that come and go. There is an eternal aspect that has always existed. If that were not true, then nothing could exist. Because something does not come from nothing.

You do not know that! That's your faith talking. Another guy on here did not even believe that galaxies are real! Is that true? Of course it is not, it's blind faith, that's all it is. What you say is not fact, and you know it's not fact. It's just a belief to convince you of a God, who was always there, and never has a begining or end. That's all it is!

The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics insists on the conscious observer as the main focal point of reality. Making it obvious that matter could not have created consciousness (as is suggested by evolution). Material reductionism and all that goes along with it is dead; a sinking ship that some will cling to into the darkness of the waters.

What a load of rubbish! The Copenhagen interpretation was in 1925! And we have come a long since then regarding quantum mechanics. Please tell me, when did Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg insist on the conscious observer as the main focal point of reality? When did they say a God was responsible for everything?

To say there is no evidence for God is just an atheist lie. If one refuses
to open their eyes they will not see it. Even tho it makes up the whole
world.

An atheist will argue such silliness as the world is not evidence for God.
And try to assert themselves as moderator of the conversation using
science to declare authority of what is evidence and what is not. They
will even lie about not being able to prove a negative.

Just to shift the burden of proof in the midst of defending an argument
that is driven only by hate. Sadly they will cling to it even if God appeared
to correct them. Because this life is more important to them and they
will not forfeit authority over it even to their Creator.

This what we see happened in the garden and it has echoed thru time
on earth right up to this very day. Surely the world before our eyes is
proof of something? Unfortunately God is not a tyrant because if he
were? The atheist would be so much better off without free will.

proof

a reply to: carsforkids

To say there is no evidence for God is just an atheist lie. If one refuses
to open their eyes they will not see it. Even tho it makes up the whole
world.

You keep on saying that, but you offer absolutly no evidence to back that up! Still waiting!

An atheist will argue such silliness as the world is not evidence for God.
And try to assert themselves as moderator of the conversation using
science to declare authority of what is evidence and what is not. They
will even lie about not being able to prove a negative.

lolol you offer absolutly no evidence, and ignore and dodge questions! lol

Just to shift the burden of proof in the midst of defending an argument
that is driven only by hate. Sadly they will cling to it even if God appeared
to correct them. Because this life is more important to them and they
will not forfeit authority over it even to their Creator.

If your God is real, I would be absolutly gutted! Because then I will know we have a God that is sexist, homophobic, pro slavery, pro sacrifice, controlling, and attention seeker who wants everyone to love him, while punishing everyone for eternity for not believing in him.

Does that sound lime a loving, caring person to you? Sounds like a sociopath! But you guys do not care about that!

This what we see happened in the garden and it has echoed thru time
on earth right up to this very day. Surely the world before our eyes is
proof of something? Unfortunately God is not a tyrant because if he
were? The atheist would be so much better off without free will.

Garden of Eden is a story! It's not real!

proof

Yeah! Still waiting for that!

Realizing his argument pails in comparison to the logic of creationist views
the atheist often retorts with something completely ignorant. For instance
the creationist offers the whole world is evidence even your eyes are evidence.
To which the atheist will answer where is the evidence? All the while filling
a conversation with false accusations and deflections.

Then in the end without having leveled the playing with their own beliefs.
They begin to attack God himself as if they are more righteous than God.
They do this when they begin to see their argument failing so they can
still believe they have good reason for living the way they do. Godless

All of this because they don't want God in the first place. Gods authority
even as his right is something they do not want. I believe this causes them
great suffering on the inside and that's why Jay is obsessed with this thread.
Surely a non believer could care less about the claims made here.

The same way I don't care about the Quran. Or seek out threads on evolution
and make an ass of myself obsessing and fixated for days. Because I have no
interest, I've decided it's ignorant and left it to ignorance. That's not what we
see from most atheists. What we do see is fanaticism.

Clearly
'

a reply to: carsforkids

Realizing his argument pails in comparison to the logic of creationist views
the atheist often retorts with something completely ignorant. For instance
the creationist offers the whole world is evidence even your eyes are evidence.
To which the atheist will answer where is the evidence? All the while filling
a conversation with false accusations and deflections.

You ramble on and on, and yet, give me absolutly no evidence to back up what you are saying! And you have the cheek to call me ignorant?

I asked you why the universe has billions of galaxies being born, and dying, over billions of years, which completly goes against the "God made everything in 6 days" And you could not answer the question! That is just one example of you dodging questions to suit your beliefs.

Then in the end without having leveled the playing with their own beliefs.
They begin to attack God himself as if they are more righteous than God.
They do this when they begin to see their argument failing so they can
still believe they have good reason for living the way they do. Godless

You think a sociopathic God should not be attacked? What do we do to people who are violent sociopaths? Normally, they end up in prison!

All of this because they don't want God in the first place. Gods authority
even as his right is something they do not want. I believe this causes them
great suffering on the inside and that's why Jay is obsessed with this thread.
Surely a non believer could care less about the claims made here.

Believe me, I would suffer a lot more if he was real!
Like I said before, I would be gutted that a brutal god existed. And your God is a brutal God. Says a lot about you thzt you wpuld worship a bring like that!

They same way I don't care about the Quran. Or seek out threads on evolution
and make an ass of myself obsessing and fixated for days. Because I have no
interest, I've decided it's ignorant and left it to ignorance. That's not what we
see from most atheists. What we do see is fanaticism.

Clearly

Made an arse of myself? lololol Yeah you keep on believing that! I debate with facts. You debate with absolutly nothing!

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grenade

The Bart Sibrel stuff has been debunked to death on here as has the allegeded loss of telemetry data too. I have seen all the threads on this thanks.
BBC? Sorry, what?
Yes there are Youtube vids claiming the ISS is fake but if thats where you get your reality from i hold little hope for you too !

No, the telemetry data is gone. Sure theres an excuse to explain why it disappeared but i don't buy it.

I'm not referring to Bart Sibrel, in fact i think he's a cook. More intrigued by the overlapping crosshairs on the photo plates etc which according to the lead engineer at Hasselbred are impossible without photo manipulation.

There are countless NASA photos of the moon that have clearly been edited. Why? I have no idea.

originally posted by: Barcs
...
LOL @ quote mines and appeals to authority. You realize that most scientists DO NOT believe in an intelligent designer, right?

originally posted by: cooperton
Do you base all your opinions on mass appeal rather than logical appeal?

LOL @ complaining about appeals to authority followed by using an appeal to majority and an appeal to authority, or should I call it an appeal to the majority of authority? Whatever. Gives the term "psychological projection" a whole new meaning (figuratively speaking).

An article in the magazine New Scientist in the early 80's states: “The lay view persists​—of scientists having ‘disproved’ religion. It is a view that commonly expects scientists to be nonbelievers; that Darwin put the last nails in God’s coffin; and that a succession of scientific and technological innovations since have ruled out the possibility of any resurrection. It is a view that is wildly wrong.” (Italics mine)

The article added: “Scientists are not notably irreligious. There are no reliable surveys on which to draw, but a straw poll among universities, research establishments, and industrial laboratories indicates that as many as eight of every 10 scientists follow a religious faith or countenance principles that are ‘non-scientific.’” Speaking realistically, surely the fact that many scientists have some faith in God is evidence that Barcs was spinning a little to facilitate his argumentum ad populum (a.k.a. appeal to the majority) and appeal to authority (which wasn't spelled out completely but insinuated, as if what he said matters in this discussion, lends credence to his beliefs and arguments regarding an intelligent designer).

I've also seen a more recent poll among scientists at universities, research establishments and one other sector regarding just the belief in God, with a 7 out of 10 affirmative response to that question. But I can't remember which one that was, and I'm not sure about the exact question that was asked in the poll.

originally posted by: carsforkids
You've accused every believer here of lying. Why?

They state false claims, even after said claims are corrected, they stay loyal to the lie.

You couldn't possibly be convinced we would have any reason to do such a thing.
Do you even understand the implications of that? I gotta hand it
to ya you couldn't have possibly picked a better insult. Good on
you.

Stating a fact is not an insult. Tell the truth and I won't accuse people of lying. The implications are hilarious because you and Coop are believers, and thus breaking your own commandments by lying. You think Jesus will forgive you, so you don't even care that you sin. That's why the Jesus loophole of sin in Christianity is absurd and why I think creationists lie all the time about evolution, science and "evidence" for God. They can always repent later.

Despite your argument against it I have shown that the conclusions
science makes are not even possible in nature.

You showed no such thing.

Even scientists agree.If you say natural selection has been observed in nature I would call
that a super extraordinary claim. But asking you to prove it would be
impossible I suppose because you can't' make nature repeat itself. So
that's convenient?

You really don't understand science in the slightest... Why even argue it? Look up what observe means in a scientific context and you will realize the absurdity of what you are saying.

Science can not make life in a lab no matter how science works.
Not even close.

Not even close?

- Generation of amino acids in high energy events has been demonstrated multiple times in multiple experiments.
- The increase of complexity of molecules with amino acid chains has been demonstrated by simulating ancient volcanic cyclical conditions.
- Formation of ribonucleotides has also been demonstrated
-DNA self assembly from RNA has also been shown

That's really just scratching the surface, in what is an ongoing venture of research several different abiogenesis hypotheses. Plus what humans are able to accomplish in a lab isn't the be all end all. There are many things that have happened that we can't duplicate in a lab. It doesn't mean they are impossible. It means there is more work to be done.

Even if that could be done it would still remain impossible
in a hostile environment.

This is even more absurd. When humans set up experiments, they try their best to replicate those early earth hostile environments. You can't be serious with that.

How you can ridicule the belief in a Creator when it just makes you look disingenuous is on you.

I'm not ridiculing belief in a creator. I'm ridiculing your horrible arguments completely devoid of logic. I'm defending science, and refuting the false claim that you or anyone else has knowledge of God or can provide evidence of such. God is a belief position, not a knowledge position at this point in time. It would be nice if you people were humble about personal beliefs, but that's almost never the case.

Truth is in this thread I have shown how science is anything but convincing.

Where?

I will never understand a heart that has hardened itself against God. There
is no reason for it.

I will never understand blindly believing a myth, simply because it sounds pleasing and has been taught to you since birth. I don't understand the unwillingness to step back, admit your beliefs are beliefs, and then read them again but with scrutiny. That's how I did it. I'm always open minded to evidence that could change my position, the problem is creationists don't have convincing evidence. That's not an insult, that's a fact, Jack. You use completely different standards to justify your belief in god, than you would use for anything else in life.

originally posted by: carsforkids
Can you prove any of that No so that's why it gets ignored.

Scientists already proved all of that!!! You just deny it.

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

Another demonstration of your lack of regard for logic. Burden of proof is on the positive claim, as we have said many times in this thread, but gets completely ignored.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: whereislogic

Anyone who reads this thread will surely notice how weak the opposition is.
Only engaging my uneducated ass and obviously wanting nothing to do
with the real challenge.

whereislogic

And that works for me just fine because it gets the job done.

Anybody reading this thread will see the exact opposite, and notice your obvious shortcomings when it comes to science or logic. This post is irony at its best. Keep it coming. Keep creating atheists with your intellectual dishonesty. The best part is, you put massive effort into it and it only helps us. We can just kick back and watch your religion self destruct.

originally posted by: carsforkids
I have to wonder is this what's allowed to go on at ATS? Members can
just troll and disrupt a thread posting nonsense and incoherent retort?
Not one post showing any interest in real debate.

Obvious hate playing by the rules to disrupt the conversation. Good troll

More irony! You are on fire today. Incoherent rhetoric is all you post and you literally just falsely claimed we are the ones being irrational here when all you got is fallacies.


a reply to: carsforkids

Please tell me this is satire. There is no way he actually thinks this is a valid argument.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
If intelligence can only come from intelligence, then where did God's intelligence come from?

God is/was/will always exist, and was never was created. Something cannot come from nothing, because Something always existed, and that was God.

So then intelligence can exist without an intelligent cause. Thanks for making my point for me. Intelligence evolved as our brains evolved.

Sorry, but I'm dying of laughter over here at how badly you just failed. You just said that intelligence only comes from intelligence. Oh, but wait special rules apply to that when it comes to God, just like in every other fake claim you make. Too funny. I don't even have to try any more, I just let you refute yourselves. It's great!

If it was fully understood we could overcome it.

False.

Do you base all your opinions on mass appeal rather than logical appeal?

You are the one that posted quote mines and suggested that some scientists believing in God makes it true, when that's the furthest thing from the truth. Oops, caught in another lie, Coop! Oh wait, it's WhereisLogic to the rescue as usual posting a wall of irrelevant text and championing your arguments about scientists believing in god being evidence for god,then pretends I'm the one appealing to opinion. If not for double standards, you guys would have no standards at all. The circus is definitely in town.

Some corners of the discussion seem to overestimate our ability to detect other civilizations.

I say 10-1000 per galaxy, 1% being star-faring.

I think that's what the "space race" on Earth was about 50 years ago, to become a space-faring race, and to be the first representative government to close the deal by landing upon another celestial body.....to impress the aliens.

Wouldn't that be a deciding factor if we were to be invited into the galactic club, or not....?

a reply to: Barcs

Stating a fact is not an insult.

You're doing it again and now I am very insulted. So now I am done
discussing this topic with you.


I figured if I complained about your lil argument from insults you'd
choose to come back and double down on the same insult. So very
typically predictable. Arguing with atheists is like arguing with cookie
cutter clones. Never anything new to bring to the table just the same
ol tired boring non factual X completely impossible odds of ever
bringing anything to life .

Because hello life is a miracle. And a great many scientists that aren't
atheists know that. Even you can see that science will never do that.
Your hope is in vein. As long as science claims it's still looking the
atheist can keep right on believing the lie. That's what is really going
on isn't Barcs?

I don't care if you insult me are you joking!


I don't even need a valid argument against this pseudo science Barcs!
Everyone that doesn't hate God agrees. Atheists are only lying to
themselves.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: turbonium1
Many in the church are good and honorable people, but some are not. The Vatican is corrupted. They hold up the Holy Bible as God's word, then suggest that Creation is just a lie, a falsehood. A great story, but that it has no truth to it.

Since the Vatican backs the Earth as a flying ball in space story, as true, they are saying Creation, the firmament, is a lie, or not true, at least.

Creation is the foundation of the Holy Bible. It is sacred text. No other chapter/book/verse is more important, more significant, than what is written in Creation.

So the Vatican is corrupt, for sure. To turn away from God's word, to a belief in the word of the antichrist, loathsome fiends who claim 'science' replaces God, who never created Earth, or life on Earth...... is beyond contempt.

Even Werner von Braun, who built the Saturn V rocket, said the firmament was true. Not the people who claim the Bible as God's word, though. They follow science instead of God's word.

A very mixed up world we live in today, we must look into all of it, ourselves, to find the truth. But never take someone's claims as true, that's being a fool.

So, basically you are ignoring all the evidence to suit your beliefs. And of course, like others, you have absolutly no evidence to back this up! Nothing at all!

So, let me ask. If you believe the words of the bible was from God, then you must be a homophobic, sexist, sacrificing, slave loving person. Is thst true? Or do you cherry pick, lime a lot of people like you do to fit your beliefs? Please tell me?

No, I'm looking for evidence, that's the whole point I'm making here. What are you referring to as the 'evidence' I'm supposedly ignoring? Is it all the faked photos of 'space', and/or people who claim to see things in 'space', which the public never sees for themselves? They've faked so many things, made so many unsupportable, unconfirmed claims about 'space', almost every day, you'd better tell me what you are referring to, unless I just mentioned it here, in which case, you have no evidence....

As for the Bible, only God could tell us about Creation, because the description of Earth, the firmament, the heavens, and all the rest....nobody could know about, or describe in such detail. We could see the blue skies above, for instance, but not know why the sky is blue. It is the water above Earth, within the firmament, which appears blue in daylight, same as water on Earth appears blue, in daylight. Exactly how it was described in Creation, the waters above Earth, and on Earth, divided in two.

I mentioned that Werner von Braun knew about the firmament above Earth being true, because he would have certainly known it. Despite everyone saying he was an ex-Nazi, or a genius, which he was, but most of all, he is considered the champion of space travel, the creator/first chief of NASA, and his masterpiece was the massive Saturn V rocket, which (supposedly) flew us to the Moon and back, safely.

Can you think of anyone who could deserve more praise, more gratitude, more honors, than von Braun? While the astronauts were seen more heroic or brave, mainly Armstrong and Aldrin, but every astronaut is a 'hero', for some reason.

But it's obvious to all that nobody could (supposedly) have landed on the moon, to become heroic figures, without the Saturn V rocket. Without von Braun, we couldn't (supposedly) have landed on the moon, in 1969, or by 1979. without the father of rocketry at the helm? Those evil Russians would have landed on the moon before America, without doubt, and all the glory goes to Communist society as superior to Democratic/Republic societies!

So those who believe we landed on the moon usually praise von Braun, more than anyone else, except perhaps the astronauts. Even then, they know von Braun was much more important to space travel than astronauts, or anyone else, for that matter.


After he died, his tombstone had only two details inscribed - One - the date of birth and death, of course.

Two - a Biblical reference. Not the actual reference, though. That means, if you don't know what it says, you must read the Bible to find out. Those who know what it states by reference, are people who can recite every word of it, and religious scholars, priests, and everyday folks who love reading it over and over again, for a lifetime.


While only he knows why he wanted to put the reference from the Bible on his tombstone, and not include the actual passage, I think it was very clever, and probably the reason he did it - because if he included the actual passage on his tombstone, nobody would need to read the Bible to find out. He wanted us to know the Bible speaks the truth, about creation, about the firmament above Earth, being real, while those who respect, and praise, von Braun, for space travel, for rocketry, for so much more than anyone else, he pioneered space travel.....


....find out what the reference states.....

They would probably dismiss it as trivial, 'a man who loved the Bible, put a reference from the Bible on his tombstone, picked at random, most likely, since the passage wasn't included on the tombstone. It could have referenced any passage from the Bible, same way.'

I haven't heard about how he might have become senile, or incompetent, as yet, although I'm sure someone will spew about it sometime...


When an argument is lost, or close to it, the last grasp is making up any/every possible explanation, which are simply excuses that cannot be proven false, or not possible in some way, or make leaps in logic, and common sense....


He certainly knew what he wanted to put on his tombstone, and why he did it. He selected one specific passage, that mentions God's creation of the firmament above Earth.

If you seriously think he didn't mean to imply anything about the firmament being real, putting it on his tombstone, by reference, and had nothing else put on it, except name and years born and died.


What do you think he was saying here?

Forgot the comments about my beliefs in the Bible -

We already know that the Bible has been revised, revamped, edited, many times, over the centuries.

Nobody would ever need to revise, alter, or edit the Holy Bible, unless they were making it say what they wish it had said, but didn't. Skewing the Bible is making it say things that were not said, changing what was said, or meant, simply because those who held power, to actually revise the Bible, destroy any other version of it, or claim it is wrong, skewed, poisoned, which made 'the King's' version of it, and the Bible we read today...


Why would the Bible have ever mentioned anything about slavery, human sacrifice, or prostitution, is one thing.

To become a champion supporter for slavery, sacrifice, and whorehouses, they altered it, many times, and that's what we've ended up with today.

While we don't know what was removed, or added, to the Bible, over the ages, we know it would be a consistent work, throughout. A conflict so large, like to say slavery is good, would never be found within the original Bible. Because this is completely inconsistent with the entire Bible, which is to love, care, and help, others, and do not hurt, harm, or kill others, which is one of the Ten Commandments.

This is all about looking for what is out of context, inconsistent with everything else, or most of it, because most of the alterations or additions were totally opposed to the rest, in many ways, they'd have to write a completely new Bible, which would be very obvious to all that it is NOT the Bible.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: turbonium1
Many in the church are good and honorable people, but some are not. The Vatican is corrupted. They hold up the Holy Bible as God's word, then suggest that Creation is just a lie, a falsehood. A great story, but that it has no truth to it.

Since the Vatican backs the Earth as a flying ball in space story, as true, they are saying Creation, the firmament, is a lie, or not true, at least.

Creation is the foundation of the Holy Bible. It is sacred text. No other chapter/book/verse is more important, more significant, than what is written in Creation.

So the Vatican is corrupt, for sure. To turn away from God's word, to a belief in the word of the antichrist, loathsome fiends who claim 'science' replaces God, who never created Earth, or life on Earth...... is beyond contempt.

Even Werner von Braun, who built the Saturn V rocket, said the firmament was true. Not the people who claim the Bible as God's word, though. They follow science instead of God's word.

A very mixed up world we live in today, we must look into all of it, ourselves, to find the truth. But never take someone's claims as true, that's being a fool.

So, basically you are ignoring all the evidence to suit your beliefs. And of course, like others, you have absolutly no evidence to back this up! Nothing at all!

So, let me ask. If you believe the words of the bible was from God, then you must be a homophobic, sexist, sacrificing, slave loving person. Is thst true? Or do you cherry pick, lime a lot of people like you do to fit your beliefs? Please tell me?

No, I'm looking for evidence, that's the whole point I'm making here. What are you referring to as the 'evidence' I'm supposedly ignoring? Is it all the faked photos of 'space', and/or people who claim to see things in 'space', which the public never sees for themselves? They've faked so many things, made so many unsupportable, unconfirmed claims about 'space', almost every day, you'd better tell me what you are referring to, unless I just mentioned it here, in which case, you have no evidence....

As for the Bible, only God could tell us about Creation, because the description of Earth, the firmament, the heavens, and all the rest....nobody could know about, or describe in such detail. We could see the blue skies above, for instance, but not know why the sky is blue. It is the water above Earth, within the firmament, which appears blue in daylight, same as water on Earth appears blue, in daylight. Exactly how it was described in Creation, the waters above Earth, and on Earth, divided in two.

I mentioned that Werner von Braun knew about the firmament above Earth being true, because he would have certainly known it. Despite everyone saying he was an ex-Nazi, or a genius, which he was, but most of all, he is considered the champion of space travel, the creator/first chief of NASA, and his masterpiece was the massive Saturn V rocket, which (supposedly) flew us to the Moon and back, safely.

Can you think of anyone who could deserve more praise, more gratitude, more honors, than von Braun? While the astronauts were seen more heroic or brave, mainly Armstrong and Aldrin, but every astronaut is a 'hero', for some reason.

But it's obvious to all that nobody could (supposedly) have landed on the moon, to become heroic figures, without the Saturn V rocket. Without von Braun, we couldn't (supposedly) have landed on the moon, in 1969, or by 1979. without the father of rocketry at the helm? Those evil Russians would have landed on the moon before America, without doubt, and all the glory goes to Communist society as superior to Democratic/Republic societies!

So those who believe we landed on the moon usually praise von Braun, more than anyone else, except perhaps the astronauts. Even then, they know von Braun was much more important to space travel than astronauts, or anyone else, for that matter.


After he died, his tombstone had only two details inscribed - One - the date of birth and death, of course.

Two - a Biblical reference. Not the actual reference, though. That means, if you don't know what it says, you must read the Bible to find out. Those who know what it states by reference, are people who can recite every word of it, and religious scholars, priests, and everyday folks who love reading it over and over again, for a lifetime.


While only he knows why he wanted to put the reference from the Bible on his tombstone, and not include the actual passage, I think it was very clever, and probably the reason he did it - because if he included the actual passage on his tombstone, nobody would need to read the Bible to find out. He wanted us to know the Bible speaks the truth, about creation, about the firmament above Earth, being real, while those who respect, and praise, von Braun, for space travel, for rocketry, for so much more than anyone else, he pioneered space travel.....


....find out what the reference states.....

They would probably dismiss it as trivial, 'a man who loved the Bible, put a reference from the Bible on his tombstone, picked at random, most likely, since the passage wasn't included on the tombstone. It could have referenced any passage from the Bible, same way.'

I haven't heard about how he might have become senile, or incompetent, as yet, although I'm sure someone will spew about it sometime...


When an argument is lost, or close to it, the last grasp is making up any/every possible explanation, which are simply excuses that cannot be proven false, or not possible in some way, or make leaps in logic, and common sense....


He certainly knew what he wanted to put on his tombstone, and why he did it. He selected one specific passage, that mentions God's creation of the firmament above Earth.

If you seriously think he didn't mean to imply anything about the firmament being real, putting it on his tombstone, by reference, and had nothing else put on it, except name and years born and died.


What do you think he was saying here?

Everything you just wrote is absolute rubbish, as usual, but for now I will home in on one thing. You praise an x Nazi, and a person responsible for millions of people's deaths, and only escaped the death penalty becsuse America wanted him to build their rockets. This is a guy you are using to prove your point!?

Oh, because he believes in God, then it all must be true lol

Why does that not suprise me!

a reply to: turbonium1

So, do you think the old testament is the one people should be reading? Or do you think it's the new testament?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

So, do you think the old testament is the one people should be reading? Or do you think it's the new testament?

Both of them should be read, and understood as different in what they include, and what they do not include, and whatever is inconsistent in each one, and inconsistent with each other, should be examined for whether it really IS saying two different things, or the same think, in a different fashion.

The problem with both old and new testament, mainly, is that humans had time to alter and revise it as they wished, and those are why inconsistencies are found within them. So it is important to judge what is said in them, as well.

Not perfect, but what is?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

So, do you think the old testament is the one people should be reading? Or do you think it's the new testament?

Both of them should be read, and understood as different in what they include, and what they do not include, and whatever is inconsistent in each one, and inconsistent with each other, should be examined for whether it really IS saying two different things, or the same think, in a different fashion.

The problem with both old and new testament, mainly, is that humans had time to alter and revise it as they wished, and those are why inconsistencies are found within them. So it is important to judge what is said in them, as well.

Not perfect, but what is?

Ok, please tell me what you think of this passage in the bible!

1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

A "loving God" thst promotes genocide? That's the sort of God you want to worship? Sounds more like the devil! This is just one of many horrible, evil, and brutal passeges in the bible!

Do you just ignore these passeges? Do you agree with them, as it's "Gods word"?

a reply to: turbonium1

What? No lol ion on this?