Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[pocaracas]

Your views are NOT the views of modern scholarship.

Again NOT MY VIEWS RETARD! They represent a different section of MODERN SCHOLARSHIP. or are you so stupid to not understand 'science' is not in 100% agreement with it self? There are multiple theories on everything with as much sometimes more research behind it. for instance global warming is a late 80s sky is falling problem who was coined originally when nixon was president. Before that? 500 years of weather research that pointed to solar output along with orbital displacement (our relative position to the sun based on the fact we do not have a semitrical trajetory around the sun. we orbit more like a hula hoop around the sun and less like a bike wheel on an centralized axel. meaning when our orbit put us closer to the sun and when and if the sun is max output (as sun energy cycles) our planet warms and cools. Again! 500 years of this type of theory, and we get 20 years of the sky is falling unless we tax the countries and their people who have factories and cars! Next thing you know you all are bending over to pay you carbon tax. 

Screw you, idiot!

[Drich]

what a simpleton.. Do I need to explain to you how reference material works??? When I quote another or leave their work or alink to their work it is not my education nor ablity that is in question. My role in this is but to sum up and present the work of other 'smarter men' in such a way that you all can not only understand it but phrase and produce it in such away as to illicit a response.. In a sense I am but a conduit putting a person before often times indisputable fact. now if you question the fact or youwant to argue the facts then you address the person who I have often time quoted.

No "smarter men" (or, women, for that matter), agree with you.  If so, name one, and we'll discuss that person's credentials.

Again they come in the way of points of reference or links I leave after a statement or point. like in our last discussion I reference the oxford school of law to quote them as having said "Eye witness testimony is extremely important in todays courtrooms" I even pointed out this was a feb of 2018 paper.

So argue that or discuss how it is currently ranked 2019 Number 1 school of law in the world.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Oxford][/url]Faculty of Law, University of Oxford - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Oxford

The Faculty of Law, Oxford is the law school of the University of Oxford which has a history of over 800 years of teaching and writing law. ... It is currently ranked first in the world in the 2019 Times Higher Education World University Rankings.

Then lets go back to your statement that dismisses all eyewitness testimony!

Where is the scholarship behind your statement? have none Then let's discuss your qualifications let's discuss your degrees.. have none? then who the F do you think you are disagreeing with me and my supported statements? Again OXford school of law says eyewitness testimonies are critical in todays court rooms and you said no.. then have the nuts to tell me my views are not main stream? where do you get this idea? from your peers from other atheist who want to ignore eye witness testimony as a legit source of evidence? to you is that mainstream?   dumb ass people like you only repersent maybe 20% of thereal world.. that means your understanding of eye witness testimony is the non mainstream view. rather you want to pick and choose to the point Noneof you can even tell me what the evidence you want so badly even looks like. (whinny bitches: well drich it is not our job to produce blabbedy blabbedy yackety smacketty) Hey Whinney if you don't know what said evidence is supposed to look like then how will you know to accept once you see it??? Or is that the whole game? NOTHING is evidence!

[The Grand Nudger]

Bullshitting us about a ranchero again, lol.  It doesn't matter whether or not eyewitness testimony is important in a court or to oxford law....because you don't have any eyewitness testimony to refer to in the first place.

[Drich]

Again NOT MY VIEWS RETARD! They represent a different section of MODERN SCHOLARSHIP. or are you so stupid to not understand 'science' is not in 100% agreement with it self? There are multiple theories on everything with as much sometimes more research behind it. for instance global warming is a late 80s sky is falling problem who was coined originally when nixon was president. Before that? 500 years of weather research that pointed to solar output along with orbital displacement (our relative position to the sun based on the fact we do not have a semitrical trajetory around the sun. we orbit more like a hula hoop around the sun and less like a bike wheel on an centralized axel. meaning when our orbit put us closer to the sun and when and if the sun is max output (as sun energy cycles) our planet warms and cools. Again! 500 years of this type of theory, and we get 20 years of the sky is falling unless we tax the countries and their people who have factories and cars! Next thing you know you all are bending over to pay you carbon tax. 

Screw you, idiot!

you've got to be one of the dumbest people on this web site.

Do you not understand my discussion was not about what you believe, but the fact that there is 500 years of global weathr research that is contary to what is currently believed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur...1000_years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Interestingly enough this milankovitch theory also jives with the holy grail of the sky is falling, the precious ice core samples. The only problem? can't make carbon tax work when the sun is naturally putting out more energy or less or the earth's orbit is off this year. can't blame the rich for altering the earths orbit can we?

Again you f-ing retard it is not what you believe but the fact there are very well researched alternatives that fit all of the evidence and yet provide a completely different conclusion/hypothesis!

NOW you belief comes in.. because you are now aware of two equally credible beliefs (one just happens to be hyped by pop culture and the media and the other all but buried because there is no money in it) You are demonstrating faith in believing in pop culture's 30 year old theory that says the world can be saved if we just pay our way out of this problem.

Do you get it? no you don't as you are one of the slowest members here. you still think this is about global warming.. because you don't actually read anything but the first two lines and the last two lines and if they don't make sense you just make up a straw man and attack it!

---

Bullshitting us about a ranchero again, lol.  It doesn't matter whether or not eyewitness testimony is important in a court or to oxford law....because you don't have any eyewitness testimony to refer to in the first place.

Proof I DEMAND PROOF FOR YOUR CHARGES! SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE LIED OR APOLOGIZE!

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not an alternative to agw.  The troposphere is warming, but the stratosphere and up are cooling.

[Jehanne]

No "smarter men" (or, women, for that matter), agree with you.  If so, name one, and we'll discuss that person's credentials.

Again they come in the way of points of reference or links I leave after a statement or point. like in our last discussion I reference the oxford school of law to quote them as having said "Eye witness testimony is extremely important in todays courtrooms" I even pointed out this was a feb of 2018 paper.

So argue that or discuss how it is currently ranked 2019 Number 1 school of law in the world.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Oxford][/url]Faculty of Law, University of Oxford - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Oxford

The Faculty of Law, Oxford is the law school of the University of Oxford which has a history of over 800 years of teaching and writing law. ... It is currently ranked first in the world in the 2019 Times Higher Education World University Rankings.

Then lets go back to your statement that dismisses all eyewitness testimony!

Where is the scholarship behind your statement? have none Then let's discuss your qualifications let's discuss your degrees.. have none? then who the F do you think you are disagreeing with me and my supported statements? Again OXford school of law says eyewitness testimonies are critical in todays court rooms and you said no.. then have the nuts to tell me my views are not main stream? where do you get this idea? from your peers from other atheist who want to ignore eye witness testimony as a legit source of evidence? to you is that mainstream?   dumb ass people like you only repersent maybe 20% of thereal world.. that means your understanding of eye witness testimony is the non mainstream view. rather you want to pick and choose to the point Noneof you can even tell me what the evidence you want so badly even looks like. (whinny bitches: well drich it is not our job to produce blabbedy blabbedy yackety smacketty) Hey Whinney if you don't know what said evidence is supposed to look like then how will you know to accept once you see it??? Or is that the whole game? NOTHING is evidence!

What eyewitness testimony do you have that cannot also be produced to "prove" alien abductions?  In any case, as you insist on talking about this, here are some individuals who were sent to death-row based upon "eyewitness" testimony:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-cases

[Drich]

(O_o)

'Referance material'?

 

Links through to movies such as 'God's not dead' and.... geeze it'd take an hour or so to trawl back and dredge up some of the other 'Pop-sci' (At best) bits of stuff you've so called 'Reffered' to on this thread Drich.

Heck, the most honest thing I think you've posted was that testimonial.

Though we all understand the inherant bias that such personal testimonials inherantly have, hence why science doesn't use them.

Drich.

You keep being bat-sheet you Drich.

or material from oxford law  or a paper on the Milankovitch cycles or any number of other points of research that conclusivly supports my positions. even parablistic references to movies that simple people do not always understand.. even though what was demonstrated in the movie is ironically being played out by a hypocritical bully that the movie itself supposedly over exaggerated, but again here in this very thread You decided to play the over exaggerated antagonist role..

How is that for a parable bee-otch? 

Now it is my turn.. 

You not only proved my point ,you did so in a way completely consistent with the movie I used as a parable, yet like a moth to a flame just by me backing off and going up against the ropes for a minute, and allowed you to throw whatever puch you like, you instinctively played out the very role of the antagonist the movie portrays! 

How did you not see this???

despite the way you objected to the over exaggerated hollywood portrayal! You on your own accord took the role of the professor and with simplar tone and distain for a believer did everything you could including personal attacks to discredit my beliefs.. You could not simply live and let live, you like the professor wanted to break my beliefs and or my reputation or name. Which proves my point very nicely. thanks for your participation sport! You have shown conclusively that people like you can not allow individual thought not in full alignment with what you believe. and when a person like you places themselves in a position of authority they often time abuse their authority and persecute those in the minority JUST LIKE THE MOVIE GOD IS NOT DEAD

 
what a predictable dummy you've turn out to be. You not only demonstrate the point I was trying to make you did so in a cartoonish over exaggerated way that only hollywood could script!

---

That's not an alternative to agw.  The troposphere is warming, but the stratosphere and up are cooling.

proof or an apology!

[pocaracas]

Screw you, idiot!

you've got to be one of the dumbest people on this web site.

Do you not understand my discussion was not about what you believe, but the fact that there is 500 years of global weathr research that is contary to what is currently believed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur...1000_years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Interestingly enough this milankovitch theory also jives with the holy grail of the sky is falling, the precious ice core samples. The only problem? can't make carbon tax work when the sun is naturally putting out more energy or less or the earth's orbit is off this year. can't blame the rich for altering the earths orbit can we?

Again you f-ing retard it is not what you believe but the fact there are very well researched alternatives that fit all of the evidence and yet provide a completely different conclusion/hypothesis!

NOW you belief comes in.. because you are now aware of two equally credible beliefs (one just happens to be hyped by pop culture and the media and the other all but buried because there is no money in it) You are demonstrating faith in believing in pop culture's 30 year old theory that says the world can be saved if we just pay our way out of this problem.

Do you get it? no you don't as you are one of the slowest members here. you still think this is about global warming.. because you don't actually read anything but the first two lines and the last two lines and if they don't make sense you just make up a straw man and attack it!

So... you want to dismiss a warming on the scale of 100 years with a theory that explains cycles on a time scale of several thousands of years?

Here, the important line is the blue one, and notice how the red one isn't going down like in the previous cycles:


Hey, look, practically the same plot as on my previous post, but with an extra source of information:

[The Grand Nudger]

It wouldn't really matter what the scale of time were.  If our current warming were due to a milankovitch cycle...then the stratosphere would also be warming. Heat from a star has to go through that to get down here.

[Drich]

Again they come in the way of points of reference or links I leave after a statement or point. like in our last discussion I reference the oxford school of law to quote them as having said "Eye witness testimony is extremely important in todays courtrooms" I even pointed out this was a feb of 2018 paper.

So argue that or discuss how it is currently ranked 2019 Number 1 school of law in the world.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Oxford][/url]Faculty of Law, University of Oxford - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Oxford

The Faculty of Law, Oxford is the law school of the University of Oxford which has a history of over 800 years of teaching and writing law. ... It is currently ranked first in the world in the 2019 Times Higher Education World University Rankings.

Then lets go back to your statement that dismisses all eyewitness testimony!

Where is the scholarship behind your statement? have none Then let's discuss your qualifications let's discuss your degrees.. have none? then who the F do you think you are disagreeing with me and my supported statements? Again OXford school of law says eyewitness testimonies are critical in todays court rooms and you said no.. then have the nuts to tell me my views are not main stream? where do you get this idea? from your peers from other atheist who want to ignore eye witness testimony as a legit source of evidence? to you is that mainstream?   dumb ass people like you only repersent maybe 20% of thereal world.. that means your understanding of eye witness testimony is the non mainstream view. rather you want to pick and choose to the point Noneof you can even tell me what the evidence you want so badly even looks like. (whinny bitches: well drich it is not our job to produce blabbedy blabbedy yackety smacketty) Hey Whinney if you don't know what said evidence is supposed to look like then how will you know to accept once you see it??? Or is that the whole game? NOTHING is evidence!

What eyewitness testimony do you have that cannot also be produced to "prove" alien abductions?  In any case, as you insist on talking about this, here are some individuals who were sent to death-row based upon "eyewitness" testimony:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-cases

Strawman douche bag you are making up shit to justify a presupposition you are trying to sell.

I've already neutered this point of yours, By pointing out the billions of witnesses who are in most cases outstandingly moral members of this or any community.. while you bring in one peron singular account meaning completely unsupported and calling it eye witness testimony.. again it does not work dummy why? because you are not comparing the whole of christianity meaning trillions of people's eyewitness accounts of the course of 2000 years as being on par or as the same as one ufo guys word.

How f-ing dishonest do you have to be at your very core to take one person's word and compare it to billions living testimony? let alone to the word of 2000 years worth of people???

---

you've got to be one of the dumbest people on this web site.

Do you not understand my discussion was not about what you believe, but the fact that there is 500 years of global weathr research that is contary to what is currently believed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperatur...1000_years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Interestingly enough this milankovitch theory also jives with the holy grail of the sky is falling, the precious ice core samples. The only problem? can't make carbon tax work when the sun is naturally putting out more energy or less or the earth's orbit is off this year. can't blame the rich for altering the earths orbit can we?

Again you f-ing retard it is not what you believe but the fact there are very well researched alternatives that fit all of the evidence and yet provide a completely different conclusion/hypothesis!

NOW you belief comes in.. because you are now aware of two equally credible beliefs (one just happens to be hyped by pop culture and the media and the other all but buried because there is no money in it) You are demonstrating faith in believing in pop culture's 30 year old theory that says the world can be saved if we just pay our way out of this problem.

Do you get it? no you don't as you are one of the slowest members here. you still think this is about global warming.. because you don't actually read anything but the first two lines and the last two lines and if they don't make sense you just make up a straw man and attack it!

So... you want to dismiss a warming on the scale of 100 years with a theory that explains cycles on a time scale of several thousands of years?

Here, the important line is the blue one, and notice how the red one isn't going down like in the previous cycles:


Hey, look, practically the same plot as on my previous post, but with an extra source of information:

you didn't read what i posted did you?

Because what you posted was absorbed into the Milankovitch climate theory.. meaning same data different conclusion or different reason for the climate change, what's more all the math works out to the point where this model can predict are super cold winters and super hot summers with in a 5% margin of error. even today

Do you get it yet retard? anything you post in favor of climate change is absorbed into the Milankovitch theory on climate cycles. Why?!?!? because no one is denying climate change.. what is being denied is that the change has anything to do with us.

Do you understand? if you do then you will know those chart you post only support what I have to say if you simply understand the data through the Milankovitch theory.

---

It wouldn't really matter what the scale of time were.  If our current warming were due to a milankovitch cycle...then the stratosphere would also be warming.  Heat from a star has to go through that to get down here.

Proof or an apology if you want to have a discussion of how you are wrong.