Excavation finds dinosaur eating mammals.

[Ace42]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4165973.stm

A dinosaur's Pompeii.

[Qdrop]

The sad thing is that ILL and Racer will probably look at this a "science had it wrong again...ha!" concering earlier theories on mammal/dinasour relationships....

but this actually shows science's strength: to have as system/paradigm in place that constantly checks itself and improves....


for racer and Ill: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1349763.stm

[racer5.0stang]

Wow, that changed my entire point of view.

Big rats have eaten small dinosaurs.

And small rats can move one ear at a time with it's new found "brain power".

[Ace42]

Did I say it was supposed to change your entire world view? Did I even say it was of any interest or relevance to you?

It is interesting for those of us who don't lead our lives on the principles of superstition.

It is by *learning* these *facts* that we *intelligent* posters can form *valid* conclusions about the world. That you don't have any use for facts and knowledge is *not* to your credit.

[racer5.0stang]

Did I say it was supposed to change your entire world view? Did I even say it was of any interest or relevance to you?

It is interesting for those of us who don't lead our lives on the principles of superstition.

It is by *learning* these *facts* that we *intelligent* posters can form *valid* conclusions about the world. That you don't have any use for facts and knowledge is *not* to your credit.

Man, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or what?

No, you did not, but your pal Q did.

[Ace42]

Ahhh, well I thank you for not quoting him directly, but may I suggest prefacing your reply with "Q-drop:" so those of us with him on ignore know who you are addressing?

And I think my points stand. Fact > superstition.

[Qdrop]

but your pal Q did.

we AIN'T pals.......

[Ace42]

I dont understand putting people on ignore.

Do you do this in real life? Are people suddenly muted?

How do you cope with day-to-day assholes?

I am not obliged to listen to day-to-day assholes. I can't think of any circumstances where I am having a conversation with a group of people, and an ignorant moron (Not that I am implying Q-drop is an ignorant moron, merely that the vast majority of people on my ignore list are) interupts, spews a lot of drivel, and then sidetracks the whole conversation into shit-city.

If I was in a pub, and someone interupted a discussion about prehistoric dinovore mammals, for example, and started saying "hah, you believe in those? God put them there to test you!" - it may well spawn an interesting discussion, however, more likely than not, the person would be ridiculed into silence.

In real life, if you tell someone to shut the fuck up because they do not know what they are talking about, they invariably do so. Here, that is not the case.

But then, I don't tend to socialise with buffoons.

[ASsman]

Do you do this in real life? Are people suddenly muted?
No...you...just..ignore...them...Or are you all for respecting peoples BS opinions aswell? Be my guest, read all of whatshisnames posts. I'm trying to remember...sisko, there we go.

[Qdrop]

(Not that I am implying Q-drop is an ignorant moron, merely that the vast majority of people on my ignore list are)

then why am i on your ignore list again?

it's too bad....cause we agree 100% on scientific matters (except for operant conditioning), and on most social issues (pro choice, civil rights)...
we just differ on foreign policy issues, the status of america and it's moral status in history, and a few other scant issues.

the real problem is that you just have to be right about EVERYTHING 100% OF THE TIME. so if someone disagrees with 10% of what you say....you will harp on that 10% for eternity.
if they are not swayed immediantly by your "highly objective and fact based argument", they are idiots, and they fustrate and infuriate you so much you have to put them on ignore.

it's like you have no tolerance for differance of opinion, particularly when that person is highly educated as well.
as if you can't understand how an educated person cannot agree with you 100%.

we all know that if you COULD read this, you would argue about it endlessly, for pages and pages....never backing down.

and it would quickly become a war of witty, biting remarks and name calling....
an E-penis debate of the worst kind.

[racer5.0stang]

I am not obliged to listen to day-to-day assholes. I can't think of any circumstances where I am having a conversation with a group of people, and an ignorant moron (Not that I am implying Q-drop is an ignorant moron, merely that the vast majority of people on my ignore list are) interupts, spews a lot of drivel, and then sidetracks the whole conversation into shit-city.

So how is it that your cheerleaders are not on your vast ignore list?

[racer5.0stang]

Why is the title to this post "Excavation finds dinosaur eating mammals." and the article is a/b "Fierce Mammals Eat Dinos for Lunch"?

[racer5.0stang]

Ahhh, well I thank you for not quoting him directly, but may I suggest prefacing your reply with "Q-drop:" so those of us with him on ignore know who you are addressing?

Why not save us all some time and take him off of your ignore list?

And I think my points stand. Fact > superstition.

I assume that you are referring to the superstition of the Big Bang theory as the origin of life?

Let me ask you this (as I have never seen you post it) what exactly are your belief(s) of the origins of life as we now know it?

[Schmeltz]

The Big Bang theory says nothing about the origin of life, genius. It really is intriguing how almost everything you say only digs you deeper into the mire of the ignorance; it's almost as though you don't know what you're talking about at all.

Regarding the initial subject of the thread: Qdrop is right when he says this demonstrates the strengths of science as mutable and reactive to new information. Luddite Creationist naysayers continually harp on how the fossil record shows no evidence of evolution, but look: apparently new fossils are still being discovered, and our understanding of the past constantly renewed. A far cry from the increasingly obsolete and irrelevant wizardry of religious textual creation myths, no?

[bb_bboy]

This will certainly impact the plot development in Jurassic Park 4.

[Qdrop]

It really is intriguing how almost everything you say only digs you deeper into the mire of the ignorance; it's almost as though you don't know what you're talking about at all.



Bingo.

that was the point of my earlier thread "a challange to Racer and ILL".

tis a shame....both Racer and ILL seem like very nice, kind fellows. good natured. i'd probably enjoy both of their company.....
just terribly ignorant and fustrating.

[Qdrop]

This will certainly impact the plot development in Jurassic Park 4.

Speilberg has been alerted.....
work on a giant CGI killer mammal has already begun.

[racer5.0stang]

The Big Bang theory says nothing about the origin of life, genius. It really is intriguing how almost everything you say only digs you deeper into the mire of the ignorance; it's almost as though you don't know what you're talking about at all.

It would appear that your inability to comprehend simple English text has hindered you.

And I think my points stand. Fact > superstition. Posted by Ace.


I assume that you are referring to the superstition of the Big Bang theory as the origin of life?
Posted by me.

Ace suggested that his points stand about fact being greater than superstition.

I merely suggested that the fact that the Big Bang theory suggested the orgins of life is a superstition.

Alas, you probably don't understand what I am trying to tell so I can only suggest for you to repeat your training with "Huked on Fonx".

[Ace42]

So how is it that your cheerleaders are not on your vast ignore list?

You referred to Q-drop as "my pal" - I took that to be crude irony, however given your gross ignorance I cannot be certain.

Who are my cheerleaders again BTW? D_raay and Assman?

Well, D_raay is not my on ignore list because he is competent and well-informed. Assman is not on my list because his racist comments (RE: the KKK and the Jews) amuse me greatly.

Both of them are phenominally more intellegent than you are. You are not on my ignore list (despite ample reason to be. Someone who thinks monkeys do not have opposable thumbs is not someone whose opinion is of any merit. Especially considering your reluctance to become informed) so I find it curious that you of all people should start pointing fingers at who I should be ignoring.

I assume that you are referring to the superstition of the Big Bang theory as the origin of life?

"As the origin of life" - As Schmeltz pointed out, you do not have a clue what you are talking about yet again.

Furthermore:

su·per·sti·tion Audio pronunciation of "superstition" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-stshn)
n.

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

The Big Bang theory operates *in accordance* with the laws of nature (physics) and in no way has a basis in magic.

Also, the only people with an "abject state of mind" are people who are stupid and ill-informed (no opposable thumbs, eh?) like yourself.

If you going to do the "I know what you are, but what am I?" rebuttal, at least try to get it right.

Let me ask you this (as I have never seen you post it) what exactly are your belief(s) of the origins of life as we now know it?

Why are you so interested in my speculations? Finally getting depressed at having facts thrown at you, so you want to move the discussion to an area where there can be *no* fact?

I'd say that is wise, however even without "fact" - logic and rationality still are valid tools for dealing with belief. You are woefully incapable of understanding things at the best of time, let alone getting into complicated theological philosophy.

There is no point in me explaining facets of my belief structure when you do not even understand observable scientific phenomena that are tangible.

Why is the title to this post "Excavation finds dinosaur eating mammals." and the article is a/b "Fierce Mammals Eat Dinos for Lunch"?

"Dinosaur eating mammals" are mammals that eat dinosaurs. Just as "man-eating sharks" are sharks that eat men.

I accidentally ommited the hyphen, however as you are not very capable at understanding the English language at the best of times, I doubt correct hyphenation would've helped.

[Whois]

I dont understand putting people on ignore.

Do you do this in real life? Are people suddenly muted?

How do you cope with day-to-day assholes?

Shooting them helps... ;) (y)

[ASsman]

Now back to the real issues. Why would Jesus let dinosaurs eat mammals? Or were they just hugging, in the Garden of Eden.

[Schmeltz]

You'll have to forgive me, racer; your statement really is vague enough to be interpreted that way, though, especially given the character of much of what you have to say.

[Ace42]

It's the only way I interpreted it. I can't see how it can be interpreted any other.

[racer5.0stang]

You referred to Q-drop as "my pal" - I took that to be crude irony, however given your gross ignorance I cannot be certain.

I assure you that it was a joke.

(RE: the KKK and the Jews) amuse me greatly.

And here I was thinking that the only entertainment that you sought after was anime and monkeys having sexual intercourse.

Why are you so interested in my speculations? Finally getting depressed at having facts thrown at you, so you want to move the discussion to an area where there can be *no* fact?

I'd say that is wise, however even without "fact" - logic and rationality still are valid tools for dealing with belief. You are woefully incapable of understanding things at the best of time, let alone getting into complicated theological philosophy.

Actually, I was merely curious. But I understand that you are afraid to put your neck on the chopping block.

Say what you want to, Ace, but flattery will get you nowhere.

"Dinosaur eating mammals" are mammals that eat dinosaurs. Just as "man-eating sharks" are sharks that eat men.

I accidentally ommited the hyphen, however as you are not very capable at understanding the English language at the best of times, I doubt correct hyphenation would've helped.

The hyphenation would have been a tremendous help and prevented me from wasting time commenting on it.

[racer5.0stang]

It's the only way I interpreted it. I can't see how it can be interpreted any other.

Your way is not the only way, unless we are in Ace42 Land.

I refer you to post #19.

[Ace42]

I refer you to:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=straw%20man

An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

Nobody who understands the Big Bang theory thinks it is a direct explanation for the origins of life as we know it on Earth.

Arguing against something that no-one actually believes is pointless.

You frequently use a straw-man argument that mankind can't've evolved from Monkeys (no-one argues they did) and again here you use a straw-man argument to say that the big bang theory does not explain the origins of life.

To clarify, in a way the Big Bang theory does in a way explain the origins of life, as without the Big Bang, there would not be suitable conditions for life to exist. Certainly not life as we know it on Earth, as Earth would not exist.

While it may not explain how life came to be how it is, the origins of life (the biological components required for life, as well as the envrionmental conditions to enable them to interact) is covered by it, as without the big bang, there would be nothing to exist.

But I understand that you are afraid to put your neck on the chopping block.

It is not that I am afraid. I have not backed down from your pointless challenges yet, despite them only (and consistantly) proving your ignorance. However, this is not the place for discussing abtract theology. The only reason we permit you to waffle on is because all discussion is invariably of the order designed to get you to acknowledge that your personal beliefs in no way shape or form correspond to object Truth.

You are convinced that what you believe is the Truth - despite your understand of your own belief structure being incredibly faulty, and that the core principals are not grounded in fact at all.

For me to start discussing these things here would be not only hypocritical, but totally pointless. Like arguing the blue is a "better" colour than pink.

This is a forum for discussion based on fact, not personal preference.

And here I was thinking that the only entertainment that you sought after was anime and monkeys having sexual intercourse.

You neglected watching you make a monumental fool of yourself constantly. Although it did wear a bit thin, oh, a dozen or so threads back.

The hyphenation would have been a tremendous help and prevented me from wasting time commenting on it.

No it wouldn't've. You have a weak grasp of English at the best of times. I find it hard to believe that you'd've appreciated the signficance of clearer punctuation.

I find it much easier to believe that you noticed my explanation about why a hyphen would be appropriate, and decided that pretending that you knew that anyway would make you less of a fool than admitting that you didn't think carefully about just what the topic was importing.

[100% ILL]

The Big Bang is the best theory scientists have come up with to answer the question how did the universe begin.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
How old is our universe? How did matter come to exist? Obviously, these are not simple questions and throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation.


http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/resources/origin_univ.html

The problem of the origin of the universe, is a bit like the old question: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg. In other words, what agency created the universe. And what created that agency. Or perhaps, the universe, or the agency that created it, existed forever, and didn't need to be created. Up to recently, scientists have tended to shy away from such questions, feeling that they belonged to metaphysics or religion, rather than to science. However, in the last few years, it has emerged that the Laws of Science may hold even at the beginning of the universe. In that case, the universe could be self contained, and determined completely by the Laws of Science.

The debate about whether, and how, the universe began, has been going on throughout recorded history. Basically, there were two schools of thought. Many early traditions, and the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions, held that the universe was created in the fairly recent past. For instance, Bishop Usher calculated a date of four thousand and four BC, for the creation of the universe, by adding up the ages of people in the Old Testament. One fact that was used to support the idea of a recent origin, was that the Human race is obviously evolving in culture and technology. We remember who first performed that deed, or developed this technique. Thus, the arguement runs, we can not have been around all that long. Otherwise, we would have already progressed more than we have. In fact, the biblical date for the creation, is not that far off the date of the end of the last Ice Age, which is when modern humans seem first to have appeared.

What is the nature of God? Even if there is only one, unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations, and makes a universe for them to govern. Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling, that it brings about its own existence. Although Science may solve the problem of ~how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that.

[Ace42]

how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that.

That is like saying "why does a stone bother to exist" - it doesn't "bother" to, it merely is.

[100% ILL]

That is like saying "why does a stone bother to exist" - it doesn't "bother" to, it merely is.

It was a quote from a Stephen Hawkings lecture.

[Ace42]

And it was still a pointless comment. I'd wager it was to placate metaphysicists or to underline his point that science doesn't deal with abstracts.

Infact, it was also taken out of context apparently:

http://www.ralentz.com/old/astro/hawking-1.html

The quote has nothing to do with the preceding paragraph -

Otherwise, we would have already progressed more than we have. In fact, the biblical date for the creation, is not that far off the date of the end of the last Ice Age, which is when modern humans seem first to have appeared.

And is precisely to do with the nature of God in relation to the laws of physics.

It is not a conclusion to the origins of man on the planet.

Please use ellipsis (...) to indicate omitted text.

[100% ILL]

I won't argue with that.

"The no boundary proposal, has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. It is now generally accepted, that the universe evolves according to well defined laws. These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the universe, to break the laws. However, until recently, it was thought that these laws did not apply to the beginning of the universe. It would be up to God to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going, in any way He wanted. Thus, the present state of the universe, would be the result of God's choice of the initial conditions. The situation would be very different, however, if something like the no boundary proposal were correct. In that case, the laws of physics would hold, even at the beginning of the universe. So God would not have the freedom to choose the initial conditions. Of course, God would still be free to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. However, this may not be much of a choice. There may only be a small number of laws, which are self consistent, and which lead to complicated beings, like ourselves."

[racer5.0stang]

Otherwise, we would have already progressed more than we have. In fact, the biblical date for the creation, is not that far off the date of the end of the last Ice Age, which is when modern humans seem first to have appeared.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Three creative acts of God are recorded in this chapter: (1) the heavens and the earth, (2) animal life, and (3) human life. The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geological ages.

It is apparent by Genesis 1:1, that the earth has already been created and in the second verse the physical description of the earth is given.

[Ace42]

Genesis 1:1

Repeating errors doesn't make them correct.

[racer5.0stang]

Repeating errors doesn't make them correct.


There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord.

[Ace42]

Racerstang, you are wrong. Remember rule #2? God says you are wrong.

[100% ILL]

Racerstang, you are wrong. Remember rule #2? God says you are wrong.


Apparantly, I missed something.

[racer5.0stang]

Racerstang, you are wrong. Remember rule #2? God says you are wrong.

Oh, my mistake.

Would you please list the rules again so that I may abide by them?

[Ace42]

Yes, it is to do with me illustrating that you cannot use the bible as a factual source without objective evidence.

He has no objective evidence that the Bible's account is correct, therefore he cannot use it to refute an argument. The only justification he ever provides for criticism of the Bible is other bible passages. He is unable to understand the incredibly simple premise that *if the truthfulness of the bible is in question, you cannot use the bible to argue it is correct*

It is like having a liar say "I am telling the truth!" and everyone else going "oh, well he can't be a liar then!"

This (both the thread and the forum) is NO PLACE FOR UNSUBSTANTIATED SPECULATION DRESSED UP AS FACT OR TRUTH.

[Ace42]

Oh, my mistake.

Would you please list the rules again so that I may abide by them?

1. Everything this piece of paper said is true and the word of God. 2. Everything Racerstang believes is wrong because he is a fool. 3. None of this can be wrong, because it is all true and the word of God.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=660267&postcount=174

[100% ILL]

If the ultimate goal of both points of view is truth, there is no need for conflict.

[Ace42]

There can be no Truth in a circular argument. Something that Racerstang should learn.

[racer5.0stang]

Yes, it is to do with me illustrating that you cannot use the bible as a factual source without objective evidence.

He has no objective evidence that the Bible's account is correct, therefore he cannot use it to refute an argument. The only justification he ever provides for criticism of the Bible is other bible passages. He is unable to understand the incredibly simple premise that *if the truthfulness of the bible is in question, you cannot use the bible to argue it is correct*

You have no objective evidence that the Bible's account is not correct.

[Ace42]

You have no objective evidence that the Bible's account is not correct.

The onus of proof is not upon me.

I have no objective evidence that God isn't a pink hippopotamus that is going to smite all heterosexuals. It doesn't mean that it is a valid position to take in debate.

However, there IS objective evidence that the Bible's account is not correct. Firstly, there is plenty of evidence to show that mankind as we know it was not in existance within 7 days of the Earth forming. Infact there is plenty of objective scientific evidence to show this is clearly impossible. In the Earth's early history, the atmosphere was unbreathable to all mammalian life. This state of affairs existed for much longer than a week.

[racer5.0stang]

However, there IS objective evidence that the Bible's account is not correct. Firstly, there is plenty of evidence to show that mankind as we know it was not in existance within 7 days of the Earth forming. Infact there is plenty of objective scientific evidence to show this is clearly impossible. In the Earth's early history, the atmosphere was unbreathable to all mammalian life. This state of affairs existed for much longer than a week.

I will refer you to post #33.

No time was given to show how long between the time the earth was created and the time that man was created.

[Ace42]

I will refer you to post #33.

No time was given to show how long between the time the earth was created and the time that man was created.

Absolute bollocks of the highest order. Only someone who is choosing to disregard common English could come to that conclusion.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

See the use of the word "And" - that means it all happened on *the first day.*

It doesn't say "And And And And, THEN God called"

As much as you would like to change the English Language to stop the bible being shit, it is the Bible you are going to have to change if you want to bend it into comprehensibility.

Even if you chose to disregard simple English grammar, that would still mean that within 7 days the Earth went from existing (but being without light, which means no plants, which means no air, which means no life) to having a fully formed man as we know it wandering around.

This is clearly *bollocks*

[100% ILL]

[racer5.0stang]

Absolute bollocks of the highest order. Only someone who is choosing to disregard common English could come to that conclusion.



See the use of the word "And" - that means it all happened on *the first day.*

Neither here nor in verses 14-18 is an orginal creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is, made to appear; made visible. The sun and moon were created "in the beginning." The "light" of course from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light.

[Ace42]

That is not only totally irrelevant, but also semantic wrangling of the most dubious order. I thought you peopel tookthe bible *literally* - not "we decided to reinterpret bits of it that ceased to hold true to observable fact"

"The Bible isn't coherant, so we pretend it isn't and use the bits that disagree with the literal interpretations of other bits, and then pretend the finished duck-taped lump is cohesive"

feh.

Still circular argument, still at odds with observable fact.

[racer5.0stang]

That is not only totally irrelevant, but also semantic wrangling of the most dubious order.

"The Bible isn't coherant, so we pretend it isn't and use the bits that disagree with the literal interpretations of other bits, and then pretend the finished duck-taped lump is cohesive"

feh.

Still circular argument, still at odds with observable fact.

Well, we almost agreed on something.

So is the sky blue over there?

[Ace42]

What amuses me is that there is apparently "no creation implied" in the bible creation myth. Your version of God seems less and less Godlike.

"He wasn't so much God that created the universe. More this entity that was drifting around the water <which didn't exist> on Earth. Then, while a part of the universe he started doing things."

If anything, that is contrary to traditional ethos. Certainly that interpretation would mean that God is NOT omnipotent.

Omnipotence precludes an independance of time. An omnipotent entity cannot exist within thime, but must be independant of it, as omnipotence indicates a literal control over time.

This also would suggest that God's influence is limited to a relatively recent state of universe creation. Thus he would be a product of the Big Bang, not a force behind it.

[Ace42]

So is the sky blue over there?

Black. It is night.

[ASsman]

So whose God's God, who created him... Did he create himself? Are in some sort of glass dome-shaky-thing. Being shaken for others entertainment?

insert -Twilight Zone Theme-

I think believing in a God is overcomplicating things. Who is above him? Is he the only one? How do you know? If all you have is people hearing voices believing... whose to say those voices are from MANY GODS! Or no God at all.

[Ace42]

"For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." - Douglas Addams.

[racer5.0stang]

Black. It is night.

Grey here.

[Ace42]

<sound C:\clips\Madness - Grey day.mp3>

[100% ILL]

What amuses me is that there is apparently "no creation implied" in the bible creation myth. Your version of God seems less and less Godlike.

"He wasn't so much God that created the universe. More this entity that was drifting around the water <which didn't exist> on Earth. Then, while a part of the universe he started doing things."

The implication is that He created it all in verse one. between verse one and two, there is an unmeasurable expanse of time where everything fell into disarray. In the subsequent verses up until verse twenty one, every thing was already in exsistence and God was simply restoring it to it's original state.

[Ace42]

No, that is your *interpretation* (and I have already been chastised by racerstang, using Timothy, against interpreting the literal truth of the Bible)

What it actually *says* is much more inline with my comments several posts up.

[ASsman]

I asked a simple question and OF COURSE I get some smart ass "Im SMRT AND U RNT!" response.

I personally dont ignore others, because I find other points of view interesting, even the ones that infuriate me. To me they just give me further ammo to prove how ridiculous they are...

such as yourself :)

Meh, you can go ahead and listen to whom you wish. It really doesn't effect me. If you wan't to listen to idiots like the "Constitution Party", go ahead, find it "interesting". Or if you wish to listen to KKK-Rock radio, because it "interests" you... that's really up to you. Don't expect me to, or anyone thats "SMRT".

[Qdrop]

this conversation is getting stale....

let's flip it....
ASsman had the right idea..


RACER, ILL: who made God? what was before GOD?

[100% ILL]

I know you aren't really serious.

[Qdrop]

I know you aren't really serious.
answer the question....

[100% ILL]

There are many names given for God in the Bible, and each name is a discription of a different facet of His personality

The primary meaning of the name Lord (Jehovah) is "the self-exsisent One"Literally meaning "He that is who He is." Exodus 3:4.

Hava, from which Jehovah, or Yahwe is formed signifies "to become" or "to become known". Combining the two the meaning is "The self-exsistent One who reveals Himself."

Elohim (God) El= strength, or the strong one, and Alah, to swear or to bind oneself by an oath, implying His faithfulness.

the first appearance of the name Jehovah in the Bible follows the creation of man. God (Elohim) said "let us create man in our image" It is Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) who actually does the creating. The name Jehovah deals with the redemption of mankind.

God had no beginning because he exsists outside of time. He always was and will continue to be after time is no more.

There are many passages that refer to His eternal being.

[Qdrop]

God had no beginning because he exsists outside of time. He always was and will continue to be after time is no more.


then i think the universe has always existed.
it, too, is not bound by time.

it has always been....and will always be.

imploding to a point singularity, then a big bang, expansion to it's gravitational limits, repeat.....

forever....and ever.


what place, then, for GOD?

[100% ILL]

Mabey, Mabey not. It's your soul you are free to gamble with it if you wish.
It's really depressing to think that your body will be rotting in the ground and your soul will be burning in Hell all because you refused to believe.

Based on your rationale, if I'm wrong and there is no God it won't matter either way, but if I'm right and there is an eternal God............


http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again.

[Qdrop]

.
It's really depressing to think that your body will be rotting in the ground

yes, it will.


and your soul will be burning in Hell all because you refused to believe.

no, it will not. soul's are imaginary.


Based on your rationale, if I'm wrong and there is no God it won't matter either way, but if I'm right and there is an eternal God............

you're right. have fun.
just don't let it effect me.
just don't try and get your beliefs taught in my public schools....or i'll come after you.



The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again.

like i told you before, i own most of hawking's work.
and you need to read the whole book.

he points to, in the very chapter dealing with no boundry condition, the very real possibility that the process of big bang to big crunch having been repeated for an eternity...

that is the very chapter where i lifted the quote "what place, then, for god? from....
(A Brief History of Time)

[100% ILL]

This has been a pointless discussion.

[like2_drink]

thats awsome

[Qdrop]

exact quote:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"(pp. 140- 1).


hey, ILL...you brought it up......you brought up Hawkings AND the no boundry condition...

see, like evolution, you don't really research what you are fighting against....or, in this case, what you are accidentally fighting for.

you cannot use science to support your theist beliefs because science does not support them.

you cannot attack science because you do not even understand the areas you are attacking.

look, just type in "Hawkings, no boundry " in Google...and look for some theology site that has some "rebuttal to Hawkings claim" and post the link.

that's really all you do anyway.

parrot.

[100% ILL]

You're right, so there's no need for you to engage in a conversation with me again. And if you weren't such a self absorbed person you would have realized that I posted the Hawking link to show your point. The whole universe forever...and ever, "so what use then for God", that you quoted............From Hawking....................Parrot.


Stephen Hawking is your god.

[ASsman]

Fine, Insulate yourself from reality.

because the reality is that these are the people running our country. Cant ignore them forever.
Wasn't aware idiots from the BBoys forums were running the country....

I'm moving out as soon as possible anyways.

[racer5.0stang]

RACER, ILL: who made God? what was before GOD?


John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:3

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

[ASsman]

That's what he says. No..really...he said that, to like Moses.
So that means he created himself? Interesting, so why can't anyone else create themselves? Is he special? But he couldn't have been special if he never existed until he created himself..right? So that means that he isn't special, and "someone" else can create themselves... and become supreme ruler of their own self-created world..?



I have no objective evidence that God isn't a pink hippopotamus that is going to smite all heterosexuals. It doesn't mean that it is a valid position to take in debate.
WHAHAH, I don't know how I missed this before.

[Qdrop]

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Word up.


that makes no sense......in the beginning was the Word.

what is "the Word"?

[ASsman]

The word was God.

Word.

[racer5.0stang]

Word up.


that makes no sense......in the beginning was the Word.

what is "the Word"?

The Greek term Logos, means (1) a thought or concept; (2) the expression or utterance of that thought. As a designation of Christ, therefore, Logos is peculiarly felictious because, (1) in Him are embodied all the treasures of the divine wisdom, the collective "thought" of God; and, (2) He is, from eternity, but especially in His incarnation, the utterance or expression of the Person, and "thought" of Deity. In the Being, Person, and work of Christ, Deity is told out.

John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[ASsman]

God as absolute origin

Creationists in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church assert that God is the origin, out of nothing (Latin: ex nihilo), of all things that exist apart from God, who exists eternally. The Church holds as an unchangeable tenet of Christian faith, that:

"... three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being. — (Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Creation - Work of the Holy Trinity" 1.2.1.1.4.2.290 [1] (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm))

Here, clearly, creation is described as an absolute beginning, which includes the assertion that the very existence of the universe is contingent upon a necessary, uncreated being, a God who is not himself created. Therefore the doctrine of creation places the knowledge of God central in the pursuit of the knowledge of anything, for everything comes from God. The "supernatural" refers ultimately to God alone. Nature is denied any divinity.

This doctrine of creation, generally speaking, is also shared by Judaism, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. The strictness to which adherents are required to accept these views, and the sense in which these definitions are official, vary widely.

... it goes on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_belief

Really I don't see the difference between believing in one God or many... Asshole Christians are suppose to respect other peoples religions.. Yet I don't think respect is coming into someones house and telling them we are right and you are wrong.. But you know whatever, Jesus said it.

[racer5.0stang]

Creationists in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church

This is the problem with your entire post.

[ASsman]

..... How does you belief differ.. AT ALL.
Inbred.


This doctrine of creation, generally speaking, is also shared by Judaism, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. The strictness to which adherents are required to accept these views, and the sense in which these definitions are official, vary widely.
OMGFGFGFHJ!! SAOMDA ! Fucking Jew.