Pat Robertson Casts 'Shield Of Protection' Ahead Of Hurricane Florence

[zyzygy]

LOL pure ignorance. Science is built up steadily from prior research and conclusions. People just didnt make up neutrinos from thin air unlike religion, these particles were hypothesized based on mathematics and prior experimentation and observations. The fact that these theories were later proven to be true means that scientists were on the right track.

There were many theories in the past that were also proven to be false and discarded. Science corrects itself, unlike religion- which is always absolute- even when its wrong.

Gods are invented, neutrinos were predicted.

 

[marke]

They were predicted as a result of Dirac's equation. Nobody can invent a sub atomic particle. What does this have to do with Pat Robertson the con man?
1930

In a letter to the attendees of a physics conference in Tübingen, Germany, Wolfgang Pauli proposes as a "desperate remedy" the existence of a new neutral particle to explain the apparent energy nonconservation in radioactive decays. During the next few years, scientists elaborate Pauli's theory and conclude that the new particle must be very weakly interacting and extremely light.

1933

Enrico Fermi proposes "neutrino" as the name for Pauli's postulated particle. He formulates a quantitative theory of weak particle interactions in which the neutrino plays an integral part.


Information For the Public

Talkorigins must have been right. Scientists proposed a new particle to explain the problems with the math related to their newly formed theory of nuclear energy as the sun's energy source. The scientists then began their decades long quest to capture evidence of the neutrino and explain its lack of cooperation with their mathematical calculations.

 

[marke]

LOL pure ignorance. Science is built up steadily from prior research and conclusions. People just didnt make up neutrinos from thin air unlike religion, these particles were hypothesized based on mathematics and prior experimentation and observations. The fact that these theories were later proven to be true means that scientists were on the right track.

There were many theories in the past that were also proven to be false and discarded. Science corrects itself, unlike religion- which is always absolute- even when its wrong.

You are going to have to get off that "observations" idea behind the formation of the neutrino. After the neutrino was "hypothesized" it was decades before scientists were ever to detect the first neutrino.

 

[zyzygy]

My point is that the specific quote in talkorigins says that neutrinos were invented.

The quote is wrong.

 

[zyzygy]

You are going to have to get off that "observations" idea behind the formation of the neutrino. After the neutrino was "hypothesized" it was decades before scientists were ever to detect the first neutrino.

So what? You appear to be groping towards making a point.

 

[zyzygy]

My point is that the specific quote in talkorigins says that neutrinos were invented.

Did the neutrino exist before it was "invented"? Did the Americas exist before Columbus discovered them or did he invent them?

 

[marke]

Did the neutrino exist before it was "invented"? Did the Americas exist before Columbus discovered them or did he invent them?

Secularists did not know to start looking for the neutrino until after they invented the thing. They probably had no clue it was going to take them 80 years to finally come up with a speculation everyone could agree to which offered creative explanations for all the problems and discrepancies that little elusive invention caused.

 

[zyzygy]

Secularists did not know to start looking for the neutrino until after they invented the thing. They probably had no clue it was going to take them 80 years to finally come up with a speculation everyone could agree to which offered creative explanations for all the problems and discrepancies that little elusive invention caused.

Secularists? Scientists. The neutrino was not invented. What is your point? The neutrino exists, it existed before it was postulated so what are you going on about? What does this have to do with Pat Robertson inventing a shield that does not exist? Get back on topic please.

 

[marke]

Secularists? Scientists. The neutrino was not invented. What is your point? The neutrino exists, it existed before it was postulated so what are you going on about? What does this have to do with Pat Robertson inventing a shield that does not exist? Get back on topic please.

The neutrino, to some, is a remarkable scientific find. Scientists first discovered the unseen little dot on the planning board decades before they actually detected it in experimentation.

 

[zyzygy]

The neutrino, to some, is a remarkable scientific find. Scientists first discovered the unseen little dot on the planning board decades before they actually detected it in experimentation.

Yes, scientists are very clever people but off topic.

 

[PoS]

Did the neutrino exist before it was "invented"? Did the Americas exist before Columbus discovered them or did he invent them?

Debating him is pointless. He seems to think scientists can "invent" particles like neutrinos... :screwy

 

[zyzygy]

Debating him is pointless. He seems to think scientists can "invent" particles like neutrinos... :screwy

True. We will stick to the topic from now on. Why do people send con men like Pat Robertson money? It is a mystery to me. Have they all had lobotomies?

 

[zyzygy]

He claimed that he knew the year the tribulation would begin. That year would have been 1982. When it did not occur, he again claimed it would occur in 1984. Again, it just did not happen. I want to point something out though. he claimed that God himself told him these things. He claimed that God told him to usher in the end times.....to usher in personally the second coming of jesus. His TV network made specific plans for this event, including a fund raiser. Its funny, how we can trace money these days dont you think? He claimed that god told him he would win the election for president in 1988. Please refer to your handy dandy former presidents list and check that one, I don't think you will find him. Now these are just a few of what amounts to probably thousands of claims. These claims came directly from god.

Financially, this guy is pretty smart. One of the wealthiest people in the world actually. I wonder how he obtained this wealth? Well, here is a quote from his wife.

"He is not a television evangelist. He has never been an evangelist. He is a television broadcaster. He has a law degree. He's a businessman. He has a multi-million dollar business that he started with $70. He's a good businessman."
Pat Robertson, The Successful Con-Artist, page 1


There's a sucker born every minute in the US. I don't blame him. If I could find a way of getting idiots to send me money I would do it.

 

[iguanaman]

There was a specific reason for Jesus' miracles...they were to give evidence of the fact that the Messiah was in the midst of men...Jesus himself regarded them as fulfillments of the Hebrew Scripture prophecies concerning the Messiah...miracles assisted faith...they were added evidence that Jesus was the Christ, because God was performing powerful works through him...

Another characteristic of Bible miracles is that the motive of the individual performing the miracle was not the selfish prominence of the individual or to make anyone wealthy, but was primarily to glorify God...John 11:1-4, 15, 40...miracles helped others, sometimes directly in a physical way and always in a spiritual way...turning persons to true worship of Jehovah and Jesus Christ...

We do not see God performing miracles by the hands of his Christian servants today because all necessary information is present and available to the literate population of the world and, to help illiterate ones who will listen, there are mature Christians who have knowledge of the Bible and wisdom gained by study and experience...so it is not necessary for God to perform miracles to attest to Jesus Christ as his appointed deliverer, or to provide proof that he is backing up his servants...

The apostle Paul clearly explained that miraculous gifts would eventually be done away with...the time would come when they would no longer be a means of identifying true Christians.​...1 Corinthians 13:8-13

In other words it's like the old joke about the talking dog.The ventriloquist owner sells the dog to the amazed bartender and when he's leaving the dog says "For selling me I will never speak another word". :lol:

 

[marke]

Yes, scientists are very clever people but off topic.

Scientists are clever. They are the ones that convinced Obama to direct the EPA to spend tax money researching the threats cow farts supposedly pose to the environment.

 

[zyzygy]

Scientists are clever. They are the ones that convinced Obama to direct the EPA to spend tax money researching the threats cow farts supposedly pose to the environment.

Off topic. If cow farts interest you then start a thread.

 

[RAMOSS]

Prove that there exists the claim that with God there is no beginning or ending? No. You already know that this is the claim.

This is violating the principle of Charity, by a purposeful misunderstanding of what he said. Now, can you prove the claim that 'God always existed' to be true.. Let's be a little more explicit about his meaning so you can't play word games.

 

[RAMOSS]

The facts surfacing from studies of ERV's contradict old evolutionist assumptions that humans descended from relatives of chimpanzees.

Well, actually, the studies of ERV's pretty much establish that Chimpanzees and homosapians share a common ancestor. If you are going to try to give a fact, try to make it a correct fact rather than misinformation.
The amount of shared ERVs in the human and chimpanzee genome. (Page 1) - Evolution - Ask a Biologist Q&A

 

[zyzygy]

Well, actually, the studies of ERV's pretty much establish that Chimpanzees and homosapians share a common ancestor. If you are going to try to give a fact, try to make it a correct fact rather than misinformation.
The amount of shared ERVs in the human and chimpanzee genome. (Page 1) - Evolution - Ask a Biologist Q&A

Presenting facts to marke is a waste of time.

 

[marke]

Well, actually, the studies of ERV's pretty much establish that Chimpanzees and homosapians share a common ancestor. If you are going to try to give a fact, try to make it a correct fact rather than misinformation.
The amount of shared ERVs in the human and chimpanzee genome. (Page 1) - Evolution - Ask a Biologist Q&A

Early assumptions about ERVs are found in peer reviewed articles but those early assumptions are now being challenged by newer scientific research. Without going into great depth, let me recommend this excellent article which challenges old assumptions in light of new evidence:

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry?, Evolution News, May 26, 2011.

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_/

Here is an important observation:

Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes. This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor.

 

[RAMOSS]

Early assumptions about ERVs are found in peer reviewed articles but those early assumptions are now being challenged by newer scientific research. Without going into great depth, let me recommend this excellent article which challenges old assumptions in light of new evidence:

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry?, Evolution News, May 26, 2011.

https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_/

Here is an important observation:

Remarkably, we have found many cases of parallel intron gains at essentially the same sites in independent genotypes. This strongly argues against the common assumption that when two species share introns at the same site, it is always due to inheritance from a common ancestor.

Well. several points. "EVOLUTION NEWS" is basically a psuedo science religious site that does not have any kind of science background, and frankly , lies. If you notice, their claims are not in a peer reviewed biology journal. That particular essay is from someone is a blog for someone who won't even give his last name, his claims are not published, and indeed, his conclusions are the exact opposite of the one article he does quote.

WHy do you have to use a site that out and out right lies?

 

[marke]

Well. several points. "EVOLUTION NEWS" is basically a psuedo science religious site that does not have any kind of science background, and frankly , lies. If you notice, their claims are not in a peer reviewed biology journal. That particular essay is from someone is a blog for someone who won't even give his last name, his claims are not published, and indeed, his conclusions are the exact opposite of the one article he does quote.

WHy do you have to use a site that out and out right lies?

You are mistaken but maybe you just don't know it. There are many other papers, some of which are published in peer reviewed journals, which also raise the same issue. ERVs are turning out to be site specific. That is not something early speculators were willing to consider for whatever reason. Now the evidence cannot be denied. That takes ERVs of the table as supposedly some sort of proof of evolution.