Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[Peebothuhlu]

(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!

 So.... wait.

Now you're saying you were using the link to the movie 'God's not dead' as a... 'Parable' ?

You weren't using it to try and actually add supporting evidence to your side of the argument?

Throwing 'Milankovitch cycles' as me just conflates the discussion you're having with Gae Bolga and downbeatplumb.

The movie is just that. A 'Movie'. It's in the category, effectivly, of entertainment because it's just a presentation of characture and/or other wise 'Staw-manning' things.

So... as something to bolster 'Facts' it fails.

As somethng to act as a 'Parable', since it doesn't present anything factual, it would also seem to fail.

That I find your posts to be strange, sometimes obtuse, often times confusing and generally rantish and crazy is my opinion.

You can insult me for my opinion and that's fine.... But wouldn't you rather be disabusing me of my views that you're a wing-nut instead of continuing to throw abuse and tantrums?

Not at work.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1890166' dateline='1552072797']
What is the downside of protecting the environment?

crashing world economy billions starve.

If you don't want to crash the world economy the best thing to do is up the regulation of businesses and not start trade wars.
It is only vested interests in damaging businesses that wold be damaged the economy would change. In Europe petrol cars are being phased out, the cars will still be made. The power to run them would still need to be there they would just be less damaging.
So we don't want want to ruin the economy we want to make it less hurtful to the environment.

Even if all the climate scientists and the data that supports them turned out to be wrong and people stopped polluting and damaging the environment so much on the basis of incorrect data all they would have done is make the world better.

If they are wrong we are not doing anything determental. Do you know the story of chicken little? He got hit in the head by something that fell out of a tree and got the who barn yard up in a riot because he convinced everyone the shy was falling, when in fact there was nothing at all wrong.

Except in this case all the science supports there being life threatening climate change caused by man. You are like the man on the titanic saying everythings fine as the ship sinks beneath the wave.

The planet has been warming since the last ice and and will continue to do so not because of anything we do but because the sun is putting out more energy. We can't do anything about that.

Man is pumping Billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its effects are well known. That the sun may also be pumping out extra energy is a reason for more drastic reduction in CO2 emission if what you say is true.

we can tax for that. so they claim the sky is falling and claim they can fix the world if you give up more of your money.

Or you could pollute less. recycle more. Bike to work don't drive, I cycle to work.

BUT the climate change deniers are told that the earth is dying, what needs to be done to save it and if they are wrong the world dies, but they are willing to take the risk.

1999 call and want your arguement back
People are not denying some change in the climate as it has been changing since the last ice age. what they are arguing is the cause. the primary cause of the recent spike in change is the melted glaciers that use to cover 2/3s of the north american continent. the migrating poles is the root caue of that as our magnetic shield is exposed now where it was not before.

So what you are saying is that in the past climate change deniers were saying that there was no change but the evidence was so overwhelming that they now accept there is change and the message is "well what are you gonna do?" well we have been telling you what to do and you just wont do it.

You are on the wrong side of history.

The problem with the sky is falling is as the glaceriers melt we begin to see the artic was once a vast tropical paradise. meaning the north pole and canada are supoosed to be or where at one time the amazon junggle, and it had to be much warmer then in our past, meaning we are alot colder than what use to be. or another way to look at it we are returning to normal.. and for this you want a tax???

Well its true that the earth has been hotter in the past. But as a human we are adapted to the climate we have now. Its true the world would survive with some life forms on it. They may just not be people.

Remember the natural state of this planet is to be oxygen free and much colder. Perhaps that's what you want.

I just don't get their mind set.

because you have been programed not to think anyway except the sky is falling with carbon credit/tax

No I accept the evidence that is presented by the experts. You seem to think your opinions are as good as facts.
They aren't.

[Jehanne]

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???

---

Name a single eyewitness to any miracle whatsoever.

[Amarok]

What is the downside of protecting the environment?

crashing world economy billions starve.

If you don't want to crash the world economy the best thing to do is up the regulation of businesses and not start trade wars.
It is only vested interests in damaging businesses that wold be damaged the economy would change. In Europe petrol cars are being phased out, the cars will still be made. The power to run them would still need to be there they would just be less damaging.
So we don't want want to ruin the economy we want to make it less hurtful to the environment.

Even if all the climate scientists and the data that supports them turned out to be wrong and people stopped polluting and damaging the environment so much on the basis of incorrect data all they would have done is make the world better.

If they are wrong we are not doing anything determental. Do you know the story of chicken little? He got hit in the head by something that fell out of a tree and got the who barn yard up in a riot because he convinced everyone the shy was falling, when in fact there was nothing at all wrong.

Except in this case all the science supports there being life threatening climate change caused by man. You are like the man on the titanic saying everythings fine as the ship sinks beneath the wave.

The planet has been warming since the last ice and and will continue to do so not because of anything we do but because the sun is putting out more energy. We can't do anything about that.

Man is pumping Billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its effects are well known. That the sun may also be pumping out extra energy is a reason for more drastic reduction in CO2 emission if what you say is true.

we can tax for that. so they claim the sky is falling and claim they can fix the world if you give up more of your money.

Or you could pollute less. recycle more. Bike to work don't drive, I cycle to work.

BUT the climate change deniers are told that the earth is dying, what needs to be done to save it and if they are wrong the world dies, but they are willing to take the risk.

1999 call and want your arguement back
People are not denying some change in the climate as it has been changing since the last ice age. what they are arguing is the cause. the primary cause of the recent spike in change is the melted glaciers that use to cover 2/3s of the north american continent. the migrating poles is the root caue of that as our magnetic shield is exposed now where it was not before.

So what you are saying is that in the past climate change deniers were saying that there was no change but the evidence was so overwhelming that they now accept there is change and the message is "well what are you gonna do?" well we have been telling you what to do and you just wont do it.

You are on the wrong side of history.

The problem with the sky is falling is as the glaceriers melt we begin to see the artic was once a vast tropical paradise. meaning the north pole and canada are supoosed to be or where at one time the amazon junggle, and it had to be much warmer then in our past, meaning we are alot colder than what use to be. or another way to look at it we are returning to normal.. and for this you want a tax???

Well its true that the earth has been hotter in the past. But as a human we are adapted to the climate we have now. Its true the world would survive with some life forms on it. They may just not be people.

Remember the natural state of this planet is to be oxygen free and much colder. Perhaps that's what you want.

I just don't get their mind set.

because you have been programed not to think anyway except the sky is falling with carbon credit/tax

No I accept the evidence that is presented by the experts. You seem to think your opinions are as good as facts.
They aren't.

Not to mention that when the earth heated up in the past it caused mass extinctions and huge global disasters and while the planet has a natural  heat cycle this isn't it . This artificially being generated by human activity and unlike natural cycles which recedes and the planet recovers this is going to keep going causing more and more damage, And he's trying to pull the glacier natural melting argument while not paying attention to rates nor does he pay attention to causation, And funny he overlooks that even governments that are not imposing carbon taxes agree climate change is real and currently man made . He's just repeating long debunked talking points .

[downbeatplumb]

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???

---

Name a single eyewitness to any miracle whatsoever.

And then of course we have all the witnesses to "miracles" that were nothing to do with Christianity.

And any time a one has been properly investigated it has been shown to be mundane.

Basically there is no such thing as an actual miracle. People can be wrong about what they see or just lie but they aren't a thing that really exists.

[Amarok]

What is the downside of protecting the environment?

crashing world economy billions starve.

If you don't want to crash the world economy the best thing to do is up the regulation of businesses and not start trade wars.
It is only vested interests in damaging businesses that wold be damaged the economy would change. In Europe petrol cars are being phased out, the cars will still be made. The power to run them would still need to be there they would just be less damaging.
So we don't want want to ruin the economy we want to make it less hurtful to the environment.

Even if all the climate scientists and the data that supports them turned out to be wrong and people stopped polluting and damaging the environment so much on the basis of incorrect data all they would have done is make the world better.

If they are wrong we are not doing anything determental. Do you know the story of chicken little? He got hit in the head by something that fell out of a tree and got the who barn yard up in a riot because he convinced everyone the shy was falling, when in fact there was nothing at all wrong.

Except in this case all the science supports there being life threatening climate change caused by man. You are like the man on the titanic saying everythings fine as the ship sinks beneath the wave.

The planet has been warming since the last ice and and will continue to do so not because of anything we do but because the sun is putting out more energy. We can't do anything about that.

Man is pumping Billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its effects are well known. That the sun may also be pumping out extra energy is a reason for more drastic reduction in CO2 emission if what you say is true.

we can tax for that. so they claim the sky is falling and claim they can fix the world if you give up more of your money.

Or you could pollute less. recycle more. Bike to work don't drive, I cycle to work.

BUT the climate change deniers are told that the earth is dying, what needs to be done to save it and if they are wrong the world dies, but they are willing to take the risk.

1999 call and want your arguement back
People are not denying some change in the climate as it has been changing since the last ice age. what they are arguing is the cause. the primary cause of the recent spike in change is the melted glaciers that use to cover 2/3s of the north american continent. the migrating poles is the root caue of that as our magnetic shield is exposed now where it was not before.

So what you are saying is that in the past climate change deniers were saying that there was no change but the evidence was so overwhelming that they now accept there is change and the message is "well what are you gonna do?" well we have been telling you what to do and you just wont do it.

You are on the wrong side of history.

The problem with the sky is falling is as the glaceriers melt we begin to see the artic was once a vast tropical paradise. meaning the north pole and canada are supoosed to be or where at one time the amazon junggle, and it had to be much warmer then in our past, meaning we are alot colder than what use to be. or another way to look at it we are returning to normal.. and for this you want a tax???

Well its true that the earth has been hotter in the past. But as a human we are adapted to the climate we have now. Its true the world would survive with some life forms on it. They may just not be people.

Remember the natural state of this planet is to be oxygen free and much colder. Perhaps that's what you want.

I just don't get their mind set.

because you have been programed not to think anyway except the sky is falling with carbon credit/tax

No I accept the evidence that is presented by the experts. You seem to think your opinions are as good as facts.
They aren't.

How smart people understands climate change 
The earth has natural heating and carbon cycles that it can deal with though they may be destructive as opposed to the artificial heating going on now that the earth can't deal with and will continue to do damage till it stops and the only people to blame for carbon taxes are denialists for forcing the governments hand . 



How a stupid person understands climate change 
Durr it was warmer in the past Durr it's all an evil ploy to take away mah muney !!!!!

---

Name a single eyewitness to any miracle whatsoever.

And then of course we have all the witnesses to "miracles" that were nothing to do with Christianity.

And any time a one has been properly investigated it has been shown to be mundane.

Basically there is no such thing as an actual miracle. People can be wrong about what they see or just lie but they aren't a thing that really exists.

The word miracle is just another word for ignorance

[Jehanne]

Name a single eyewitness to any miracle whatsoever.

And then of course we have all the witnesses to "miracles" that were nothing to do with Christianity.

And any time a one has been properly investigated it has been shown to be mundane.

Basically there is no such thing as an actual miracle. People can be wrong about what they see or just lie but they aren't a thing that really exists.

A miracle, is by definition, a macroscopic violation of the conservation of energy, quite easy for an omnipotent god to do.

[Gwaithmir]

And then of course we have all the witnesses to "miracles" that were nothing to do with Christianity.

And any time a one has been properly investigated it has been shown to be mundane.

Basically there is no such thing as an actual miracle. People can be wrong about what they see or just lie but they aren't a thing that really exists.

A miracle, is by definition, a macroscopic violation of the conservation of energy, quite easy for an omnipotent god to do.

And your evidence of something like that really happening is......??????

[Jehanne]

A miracle, is by definition, a macroscopic violation of the conservation of energy, quite easy for an omnipotent god to do.

And your evidence of something like that really happening is......??????

At present, no evidence, and no reason to think such will change, ever.

[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!

I was about to say NOW, he gets it... But then you re post the other graph which again according to the theory I posted your graph works for me and my guy's theory just as well. Again retard same data different hypothsis.. you are so use to arguing from a polar position you think if i do not 100% agree with you I am doubting everything. not the case my dense buddy. I am say global warming is real and can be proven since the last ice age and as the ice melts the faster it warms, but not having to do with co2 but having to do with solar out put. Meaning everything you can list as evidence for co2 as being the cause I can say the Milankovitch theory also used as proof it is right. Not only that we this theory or one lie it has been around for hundreds of years with hundreds of years worth of data to support it. you have what al gore mockumentry forward?

Please before you say something stupid take the time and google Milankovitch cycles. it is another valid scientific explanation as to why we are getting warmer and colder all at the same time! which again shows that believing in global climate change due to co 2 is nothing more than an expression of faith because science provides a more conclusive theory that take not just core samples into consideration but the data we can gather from ancient tree rings, 500 years of collective daily weather data and what we can observe from the sun.

 not just the word of politicians who want another way to tax people and their bought and paid for shills have to say!

---

Everyone has everything wrong, except Drich.

Who here besides me has tapped into the promised God has given us? Me is that it... hmmm doesn't that mean I'm doing something right? If never experienced anything God has promised then could one say you are doing something wrong?

---

Everyone has everything wrong, except Drich.

Who here besides me has tapped into the promised God has given us? Me is that it... hmmm doesn't that mean I'm doing something right? If never experienced anything God has promised then could one say you are doing something wrong?