United Empire of America....
- Thread starter Projekt
- Start date
afterhours
Registered
Mr Brown
Registered
Mr Brown
Registered
I couldn't agree more, and he writes a darn good short story when he's in the mood
That he most definitely does.
Projekt
Registered
:yes: Lurking and being entertained..You're too funny Projekt, you just throw crap out there and then lurk about laughing at all the raw nerves exposed. I can see you as the kid that pulled the legs off spiders
Torturing spiders or animals of any kind? :no:
:yes: Lurking and being entertained..
No shid, you rascal
oskala
Banned
I didn't call anybody on this forum a racist. And like everyone else here I am entitled to my opinion. There are racist in all races and cultures. My reference to "rich racist white men" wasn't directed to white people in general and I'm sorry some people interperted my remarks as such. My Dad is white and my ex wife is white so that make me half white and my Sons one quarter white. So I don't have a probelm with any race or culture. But I do have a problem with rich men who are mostly white controlling the fiscal policies of the world which is leading to the things I mentioned in my previous post of the poor getting poorer and the disappearance of the middle class. There are more people in poverty in America now then there was when G. Bush took office. These are the facts. And poverty breeds hopelessness which leads to crime and violence.
Personally I love the teachings of Jesus and Buddha which promote Love, Peace, and Justice!
As for my "FREE" health care. Free was the wrong word to use and I apoligize. Native peoples of the Americas payed for their health care with their blood, loss of their home land, and much of their culture. Speaking of paying with our blood, how about when US soldiers cut the breasts off Native women and played catch with them. Or threw Native babies into the air and caught them on their bayonet while thier mother watched. There is no blame in my heart or head that todays Americans had any part in these crimes. But we must learn from our past that thinking one group of people is better than another group is wrong and leads to GENOCIDE!!!
Did I do better this time using paragraphs?
Personally I love the teachings of Jesus and Buddha which promote Love, Peace, and Justice!
As for my "FREE" health care. Free was the wrong word to use and I apoligize. Native peoples of the Americas payed for their health care with their blood, loss of their home land, and much of their culture. Speaking of paying with our blood, how about when US soldiers cut the breasts off Native women and played catch with them. Or threw Native babies into the air and caught them on their bayonet while thier mother watched. There is no blame in my heart or head that todays Americans had any part in these crimes. But we must learn from our past that thinking one group of people is better than another group is wrong and leads to GENOCIDE!!!
Did I do better this time using paragraphs?
J'Man
Registered
Here's an instance...
Christians- In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.
Science- That's not true, the universe is eternal and had no beginning.
Christians- If God said it, that's good enough for me.
Science later on- Oops we were wrong, the universe did have a beginning. But wait it couldn't have been God that created it.
Christians- If God said it, that's good enough for me.
Of course we're still waiting for Science to catch up.
In case you were wondering what the above was based on..
It was 1916 and Albert Einstein didn't like where his calculations were leading him. If his theory of General Relativity was true, it meant that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Einstein's calculations indeed were revealing a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. This flew in the face of his belief that the universe was static and eternal.
Einstein later called his discovery "irritating." He wanted the universe to be self-existent-- not reliant on any outside cause but the universe appeared to be one giant effect. His theory is now proven accurate to five decimal places.
J'Man
Registered
It is very true that you must have faith in whatever you believe. I honestly don't have enough faith to be an atheist. To look at the complexity of the universe and how for example if the gravitational force was altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, therefore we would not exist. This is just one of MANY examples. It would be like finding a Rolex and saying as complex as this is, it had no creator. It just somehow came together from natural causes. ??? That beautiful painting on the wall...athesist would say well I didn't see who created, therefore it must have been here all along. It's just always been there. See what I mean, how much faith does it take to believe that, alot more than I have.
I honestly can't understand how anyone can believe there is no God with all the technology and science that is available today. As it was said before we all have to make a choice on what we believe. I believe the Bible is God's infalable word. I've yet to see anyone that could disprove it and if you read it, look at the historical records, and the science that is available today it completely supports it. in addition most that have accepted Christ (on faith) can also tell you how he changes your life. He changed mine in places I would have never imagined. You can also sense his presence. This is why it doesn't matter to most Christians what idea of the month "man" comes up with on explaining God's creation.
Either no one created something out of nothing or else someone created something out of nothing. Which view is more reasonable? Nothing created something?
If you're really interested in researching this further send me a PM and I'll be glad to point you to some material to reference so you can make you own decision based on the evidence that is out there.
Cheers!
afterhours
Registered
It is very true that you must have faith in whatever you believe. I honestly don't have enough faith to be an atheist. To look at the complexity of the universe and how for example if the gravitational force was altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, therefore we would not exist. This is just one of MANY examples. It would be like finding a Rolex and saying as complex as this is, it had no creator. It just somehow came together from natural causes. ??? That beautiful painting on the wall...athesist would say well I didn't see who created, therefore it must have been here all along. It's just always been there. See what I mean, how much faith does it take to believe that, alot more than I have.
I honestly can't understand how anyone can believe there is no God with all the technology and science that is available today. As it was said before we all have to make a choice on what we believe. I believe the Bible is God's infalable word. I've yet to see anyone that could disprove it and if you read it, look at the historical records, and the science that is available today it completely supports it. in addition most that have accepted Christ (on faith) can also tell you how he changes your life. He changed mine in places I would have never imagined. You can also sense his presence. This is why it doesn't matter to most Christians what idea of the month "man" comes up with on explaining God's creation.
Either no one created something out of nothing or else someone created something out of nothing. Which view is more reasonable? Nothing created something?
If you're really interested in researching this further send me a PM and I'll be glad to point you to some material to reference so you can make you own decision based on the evidence that is out there.
Cheers!
thanks....i spent most of my youth in a catholic school, that is why i m no longer catholic. the biggest problem with believeing their is a god...is organized religeon, thier politics and hypocrisy. i have a problem when my church denounces homosexuality, yet protects and hides priests that rape children. one of my best friends as a child was molested by priest..
my stance is simply:
"i don't know who, what or how we and the universe were created"
science cannot explain or prove it.....
organized religeon cannot asnwer my questions....
both ideals are flawed, and which ever path you choose takes a leap of faith. I am OK with not knowing, i don't need to beleive in "fairy tales" to make myself fell better....
i can accept that i don't know....
J'Man
Registered
Very sorry to hear about your friend. My heart goes out to him. I can't imagine what that must have been like. I can certainly understand your point of view, although I hope you can search your heart again one day and realize that not all of God's people are as screwed up as that priest. That would be like saying I met a rider on a Hayabusa that was a criminal, therefore all Hayabusa riders must be criminals. The priest and the church that stood by him committed a grave sin. All of them will stand before God someday and will have to give an account on what they did. This is why I learned long ago not to put my faith in man, he will let you down time and time again. Now I only put my faith in the father.
If I can ever be of assistance let me know. I'm no expert, but I'll be glad to share with you what I know. Please don't let this life pass before you without accepting Christ as your personal savior. Our time here is very short. We will all take that last breath one day and at that point we will step out into eternity. Our destinations will be one of two places, neutral we cannot be. My prayer is that you'll come back to the father before that takes place.
Thanks and good night,
J
Here's an instance...
Christians- In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.
Science- That's not true, the universe is eternal and had no beginning.
Christians- If God said it, that's good enough for me.
Science later on- Oops we were wrong, the universe did have a beginning. But wait it couldn't have been God that created it.
Christians- If God said it, that's good enough for me.
Of course we're still waiting for Science to catch up.
In case you were wondering what the above was based on..
It was 1916 and Albert Einstein didn't like where his calculations were leading him. If his theory of General Relativity was true, it meant that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Einstein's calculations indeed were revealing a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. This flew in the face of his belief that the universe was static and eternal.
Einstein later called his discovery "irritating." He wanted the universe to be self-existent-- not reliant on any outside cause but the universe appeared to be one giant effect. His theory is now proven accurate to five decimal places.
Science "caught up" almost 90 years ago...
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.
Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, as suggested by Lemaître in 1927, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity. If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the Universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models. Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to understand stellar nucleosynthesis, the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.
It is very true that you must have faith in whatever you believe. I honestly don't have enough faith to be an atheist. To look at the complexity of the universe and how for example if the gravitational force was altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, therefore we would not exist. This is just one of MANY examples. It would be like finding a Rolex and saying as complex as this is, it had no creator. It just somehow came together from natural causes. ??? That beautiful painting on the wall...athesist would say well I didn't see who created, therefore it must have been here all along. It's just always been there. See what I mean, how much faith does it take to believe that, alot more than I have.
I honestly can't understand how anyone can believe there is no God with all the technology and science that is available today. As it was said before we all have to make a choice on what we believe. I believe the Bible is God's infalable word. I've yet to see anyone that could disprove it and if you read it, look at the historical records, and the science that is available today it completely supports it. in addition most that have accepted Christ (on faith) can also tell you how he changes your life. He changed mine in places I would have never imagined. You can also sense his presence. This is why it doesn't matter to most Christians what idea of the month "man" comes up with on explaining God's creation.
Either no one created something out of nothing or else someone created something out of nothing. Which view is more reasonable? Nothing created something?
If you're really interested in researching this further send me a PM and I'll be glad to point you to some material to reference so you can make you own decision based on the evidence that is out there.
Cheers!
The Bible says that Noah’s Flood covered the entire Earth about 2400 B.C. Archeologists who have excavated Jericho, however, have found it continuously occupied back to 8000 B.C. without interruption or evidence of any flood. No evidence of such a flood, in fact, has ever been found in Israel. Apart from the annual flooding associated with the Nile, no flood is mentioned in the records of ancient Egypt, either.
Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1 say that the Earth has four corners. Job 37:3 refers to the ends or edges of the Earth. Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5 says that Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the Earth from the top of a tall mountain. Today, of course, we know that the Earth is a sphere that has neither edges nor corners and that all lands cannot be seen from a single point no matter how high up we go.
There are many verses of The Bible that are easily disproven...the problem is that some need to believe that this or that in The Bible is "fact" I saw who cares because by looking for "fact" you can miss the message. SO if you have faith in the message whether or not a flood actually happened is irrelevant.
Last edited:
J'Man
Registered
Science "caught up" almost 90 years ago...
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.
Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, as suggested by Lemaître in 1927, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity. If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the Universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models. Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to understand stellar nucleosynthesis, the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.
"Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable."
The Big Bang theory is still just that.... a "theory". You asked for an incident where science had to concede to religion. Do you not agree? I'm not sure what point your trying to make now with with another theory from man on how all of us just exploded into existence, which even if correct was after Einstein's theory. I have a theory that you can lead a horse to water, but it doesn't always mean he will drink.
Now, let's get that LHC fired up and create that black hole that will suck up all our Hayabusa's!
J'Man
Registered
The Bible says that Noah’s Flood covered the entire Earth about 2400 B.C. Archeologists who have excavated Jericho, however, have found it continuously occupied back to 8000 B.C. without interruption or evidence of any flood. No evidence of such a flood, in fact, has ever been found in Israel. Apart from the annual flooding associated with the Nile, no flood is mentioned in the records of ancient Egypt, either.
Do we really have to get into the whole carbon dating argument? It's not like man ever makes mistakes when trying to figure out how things work. I would definitely put my eternity in the hands of some archeologist. This is apart from the simple argument of bias. It's not like most scientist are atheist.
Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1 say that the Earth has four corners. Ever heard of NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, & WEST.
Job 37:3 refers to the ends or edges of the Earth. Again see above. Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5 says that Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the Earth from the top of a tall mountain. Today, of course, we know that the Earth is a sphere that has neither edges nor corners and that all lands cannot be seen from a single point no matter how high up we go. Wow so now you know what Jesus can and can't see. He could bring people back to life, but I'm sure he just couldn't quite see around those darn Himalayans.
There are many verses of The Bible that are easily disproven...the problem is that some need to believe that this or that in The Bible is "fact" I saw who cares because by looking for "fact" you can miss the message. SO if you have faith in the message whether or not a flood actually happened is irrelevant.
What do you believe in Dino?
Last edited:
"Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable."
The Big Bang theory is still just that.... a "theory". You asked for an incident where science had to concede to religion. Do you not agree? I'm not sure what point your trying to make now with with another theory from man on how all of us just exploded into existence, which even if correct was after Einstein's theory. I have a theory that you can lead a horse to water, but it doesn't always mean he will drink.
Now, let's get that LHC fired up and create that black hole that will suck up all our Hayabusa's!
Are you saying that scientific inqury into the orgin of the universe ended with Einstein? Where is the concession by science that the Genesis is how the universe was created?
Similar threads
