- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 134,794
- Reaction score
- 31,556
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
LOL yeah, whatever... this conversation was already pretty bad... now it is just stupid. Enjoy the rest of your day.
LOL yeah, whatever... this conversation was already pretty bad... now it is just stupid. Enjoy the rest of your day.He didn't...the introduction of disobedience did...inherited much like anything else that is inherited from our forefathers...
You, too, Bodhi...if I can help you with anything else, just ask...LOL yeah, whatever... this conversation was already pretty bad... now it is just stupid. Enjoy the rest of your day.
I get it. You are confused and frustrated. You need to learn a little more formal logic before any of this is going to make sense to you.That is ridiculous.
Included in the creation of the entire timeline by the omnipotent being that knows what future he is creating, is the creation of the future.A person that knows the future does not determine the present.
Are you speaking as an omnipotent being that is creating the time-space continuum?If I can see the future as easily as the present
Because he is the one creating it. By creating it, he is determining it. He knows what he is creating/determining when he creates it.You need to explain why God must not known the future outcomes for it to no longer be Free Will.
Did you just mock me for a bogus position that you assigned to me?So you're saying that Hawk was a bible-thumpin' jesus freak before he became a "babbling moron"??? LOL
Are you ready for some bad news? "IQ" scores are for the gullible who think intelligence is a numerical value. Someone sold you something by stroking your ego, i.e. telling you that you are "thooo vewy thmaaart!" What was it, a timeshare? A used car? What?Nothing really ... except that it's from a guy with a Mensa-eligible IQ...
... for the exact same reason that you have no compelling evidence to prove that no gods exist. Yours is just as much an unfalsifiable theological assertion.Lol, uh, no it's not. There still isn't even a speck of credible or compelling evidence to prove that a god exists.
You can't be "playin' the odds" if you don't know what the odds are. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that math is not your strong suit. Correct me if I am wrong but you have not established any probabilities, right? Of course, if you have, I'd love to know what they are. Christians do the same thing, i.e. they claim that the odds of the universe being able to support human life is 2345234528345239423490234095823409583335566652343456 to 1 ... and that "that just isn't going to happen." Of course they just pull some huge number out of their azzes.I'm simply playin' the odds ... which, I believe, are heavily in my favor.
Christians do the exact same thing. "You should talk to my minister. He explains it so much better."My man Tice does a nice job explaining our position...
Too funny! You really haven't thought this through, have you?Besides, the whole argument is a waste because it is about God simply knowing what we are going to do.
Because it has not happened yet... I get it, you like to post arrogant shit in order to hide your confusion and misunderstanding. You are not the first.Too funny! You really haven't thought this through, have you?
How can some future result not be "locked-in" if it is known that it will happen?
Its not a blog, there's plenty of studies being cited on it, so its obvious you didnt even read it.No, posting a blog link on an internet forum is not disproving climate change. Who said anything about making money? Publish your findings and have them peer reviewed. Why would you not want to become rich and famous by exposing this fraud?
I'm not the arbiter of science, science is. The fact that you think science is conducted on the Joe Rogan show and on DP says a lot about your scientific literacy. There's a reason no respectable scientist debates flat earthers, young earth creationists and other nuts.Its not a blog, there's plenty of studies being cited on it, so its obvious you didnt even read it.
And thanks for proving me right. You are closed minded with regards to other viewpoints, which confirms you are anti-science.
I already showed you links to multiple studies that show it. The fact that you keep harping on that its kooky simply means you are anti-science and are no better than Muslim fanatics.I'm not the arbiter of science, science is. The fact that you think science is conducted on the Joe Rogan show and on DP says a lot about your scientific literacy. There's a reason no respectable scientist debates flat earthers, young earth creationists and other nuts.
If you'd like to prove no amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere can have an effect on anything, publish your results. What's stopping you?
You lazily copy pasted some blog links you googled. If you'd like to prove the Earth is flat, you're going to have to use science to prove your case. I'm not the one you need to convince.I already showed you links to multiple studies that show it. The fact that you keep harping on that its kooky simply means you are anti-science and are no better than Muslim fanatics.
Show me definitive proof that people are the cause of climate change. Come on, I dare you.
Prove the studies wrong then.You lazily copy pasted some blog links you googled. If you'd like to prove the Earth is flat, you're going to have to use science to prove your case. I'm not the one you need to convince.
I'm not a climate scientist, so it's not my job to peer review papers. Feel free to present your evidence the Earth is flat.Prove the studies wrong then.
The fact that you are dismissive without proof confirms your belief is equal to that of a religious fanatic. Congrats!
Top Three Flaws of Evolution not exposed in Public Schools science classes: https://evolutionnews.org/2012/05/what_are_the_to/
A blog post by a creationist.
Why can’t you reference an actual scientific journal pointing out these “flaws”?
Casey Luskin makes no claim that ID proves creationism.Writer of the article in question in Evolution Today News
So you don't understand how this whole timeline thing works.Because it has not happened yet...
Don't misunderstand me. You get a full pass. Schoolteachers aren't expected to know anything.I get it, you like to post arrogant shit in order to hide your confusion and misunderstanding. You are not the first.
Obviously I do...So you don't understand how this whole timeline thing works.
If you are trying to say that you failed 8th grade then you succeeded.You can't "know" that something is going to happen unless it is already destined to happen.
Apparently you are under the mistaken impression that Christians believe that God is not omniscient and that He was not omniscient when He created everything.
If God created the time-space continuum a certain way, then it was established upon creation. The past, present and future are locked in, and were so since creation.
Otherwise, to say that God does know what the future holds is to claim that He is not omniscient.
There's no wiggle room. If God created everything, to include the future, that future is already set. Knowing the future precludes free will. I apologize for any rude awakenings this might have inflicted upon those in denial.
Tacos can be quite delicious...Don't misunderstand me. You get a full pass. Schoolteachers aren't expected to know anything.
One of the more stupid sayings of all time Those that can teach, teach. Most people could not be teachers by their own, unassholishness admission.Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
These are not flaws in the Darwin's theory. They are standard logical fallacies on the part of the author.Top Three Flaws of Evolution not exposed in Public Schools science classes: https://evolutionnews.org/2012/05/what_are_the_to/
Nope. Not a chance. Then again, no one expects you to. You have a teaching degree. You get a pass.Obviously I do...
Nope. Our institutions of learning have become the fallback position for those who are failures in the competitive world of free markets. So many teachers suck that good ones who can actually teach and who will teach material that is correct, useful and that will make students competitive, are the exception that is becoming rarer and rarer.One of the more stupid sayings of all time Those that can teach, teach.
You have convinced me that in all likelihood, you are probably a crappy teacher, specifically one who would lash out and punish students for correcting him/her ... which must happen often.Most people could not be teachers by their own, unassholishness admission.
Please feel free to try. It would be funny. You don't know anything and you can't do anything, and you think your insults would carry weight? Too funny.I won't even waste time insulting other people's jobs to demean you.
There is no climate science. It's funny that you think there is.I'm not a climate scientist,
"Peer review" is not relevant to science. It's funny that you think it is.so it's not my job to peer review papers.
Feel free to present your science that a substance, e.g. "greenhouse gas", can cause a body of matter to spontaneously increase in its average temperature without any additional thermal energy.Feel free to present your evidence the Earth is flat.
Sorry, I stopped reading this childish post as soon as you claimed there's no such thing as climate science and that peer review has nothing to do with science. When you start off with such a ridiculous lie I'm not even going to look at the rest.There is no climate science. It's funny that you think there is.
"Peer review" is not relevant to science. It's funny that you think it is.
Feel free to present your science that a substance, e.g. "greenhouse gas", can cause a body of matter to spontaneously increase in its average temperature without any additional thermal energy.
Too funny.
Wait ... you never had any science, ever, did you? You simply regurgitate what you are told to believe, right?
Show how. Merely making a statement that I have not is feeble and childish... outline how I have not contributed cognitively in any way.Nope. Not a chance. Then again, no one expects you to. You have a teaching degree. You get a pass.
Nope. Our institutions of learning have become the fallback position for those who are failures in the competitive world of free markets. So many teachers suck that good ones who can actually teach and who will teach material that is correct, useful and that will make students competitive, are the exception that is becoming rarer and rarer.
More often than not, teachers push their political agendas on their students as captive audiences. Teachers who are supposed to be teaching science don't even know what science is; they've never had to learn. Those who understand science and math and who can apply both are out making good money doing so, not voluntarily taking a huge pay cut just for the privilege of keeping students in line.
You're deluding yourself if you think you are any sort of expert on any of the topics we have discussed. The only people you are going to fool are those who are also scientifically illiterate and don't know what to make of technical material they don't understand. Just look at any of your posts. Any of them. You haven't enlightened anyone on anything. You have not contributed cognitively in any way.
Start a thread about it...Yes, you have supporters who will make an effort to stand up for you ... but not a single one can point to any sort of intellectual contribution that you have made or to any sort of useful information that you have offered.
I made fun of your attempt to insult me for my job and you didn't even get it. LOLYou have convinced me that in all likelihood, you are probably a crappy teacher, specifically one who would lash out and punish students for correcting him/her ... which must happen often.
Please feel free to try. It would be funny. You don't know anything and you can't do anything, and you think your insults would carry weight? Too funny.
How about you just contribute to the board by responding to someone's point with embellishment, with additional insight or with something that promotes intelligent conversation? I realize you consider that a tall order but I think you would find it rewarding if you were to give it a try.
And five words is not even his worst start to a post...Sorry, I stopped reading this childish post as soon as you claimed there's no such thing as climate science and that peer review has nothing to do with science. When you start off with such a ridiculous lie I'm not even going to look at the rest.
“Anything you don't understand, you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it.” ― Carl Sagan, Contact
Throughout human history and across many cultures, probably going back to the Stone Age, humans have engaged in a "god of the gaps" mentality when it came to the inexplicable or phenomenon that was not understood. Basically, the god of the gaps argument states that any gap in our knowledge or understanding can be explained or filled by inserting the deity of one's choice as an explanation. For example, ancient Greeks would view the sun "travelling" across the sky. We know it's due to the Earth's rotation. But the Greeks believed the god Apollo pulled it across the sky with his chariot. Thunder and lightning? We understand weather conditions and phenomenon. Ancient Greeks believed it was Zeus and he was probably pissed off about something. Volcano eruptions, earthquakes, ocean waves, seasonal changes, ect., all largely explained and understood by science today. But ancient people across different cultures and times thought it was due to god/s. This is still (amazingly and unfortunately) prevalent today. It's evident when a theist invokes creationism or Intelligent Design, or something along those theistic lines as an explanation for how/why we (humans, Earth, the universe, ect.) are here. It's a convenient and emotionally pleasing explanation to what is otherwise unknown. But such a thought process is intellectually lazy and possibly dishonest.
But God/s is not. an explanation for anything. It's a failure to explain. It's an "I don't know" wrapped in a theological package. Crediting god/s only means the one invoking them actually has no idea and cannot admit that. As Jerry Coyne once said (as cited in 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, 2006), "If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labelling our ignorance "God".' But science seeks out questions and the unknown. It doesn't make assumptions and then call it a day. Science practitioners will look for objective, empirical evidence and (hopefully) follow that evidence to where it leads and not to where they or anyone wants it to go. And when science encounters a mystery that it cannot explain, then the correct and honest response is "I/we don't know." But making something up or making assumptions like "God/s did it" just to explain something or satisfy a personal belief or whim is neither correct or honest.
Fortunately, over the centuries, science has advanced and developed tools to further its advancement and information gathering. The result is a much greater understanding of the natural world and why thing actually work the way they do. As the "gaps" in our knowledge become filled, god/s are objectively needed less and less, if at all. Granted, there is still much we do not know or understand and some questions may never be answered. Such mysteries are intellectually stimulating and must be solved, if possible. But not at the expense of intellectual integrity by utilizing an easy, convenient "answer" that is really no answer at all. It's one thing to have and appreciate a mystery. But it's quite another to want to keep it mysterious.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?