Goldtop

the guy with the Ph.D in physics has to say, as well as looking at the test results provided by reputable testing labs

Sorry, but I see no test results from reputable testing labs, but I did see an email from other scientists who refused to provide these creationists lab services any longer due to their stupid claims.

2. Or can a person be repulsed (by the act, not the person) and not be a bigot at all?

3. Is repulsion at the homosexual act a learned response or is it biological?

4. If a man is repulsed at the sexual act between two men, but feels attracted at the sexual act between two women, is that bigotry?

So, why are you watching homosexuals having sex? Are you watching porn or something? It you're repulsed, why do you keep watching?

And he addressed that point. It is illogical to think that a meaningless universe based on chance would come up with moral judgements.

That would be the fallacy of Personal Incredulity. Just because you have no clue doesn't mean others don't, Cleetus.

Most scientists who read Einstein's general theory of relativity think so.

But, you have no clue what GR says, right Cleetus?

What you observe is subject to how fast you're moving, what's happening to the space between you and the stars, what is between you and the stars, and both your movements in relation to each other. Someone else, in another time or location, will observe something else.

ts talking about a falling body pulled by gravity.

No. it's not talking about a falling body, Cleetus. You really have no clue.

It was always about orbital balance

You keep using terms that aren't there, anywhere, Cleetus. Better give it up, you're just making yourself more the fool.

I think they can.  A similar issue would be present for Mars.  Martian nights are cold.

They're two different environments, not similar at all. The moon is much closer to the Sun and gets 2 weeks of intense radiation whereas Mars gets almost the same as the Earth, about 12 hours in which the effect is much less intense.

Kepler was talking about the relation of mass to speed, not orbital balance.

The above forumula is talking about gravity in a two body problem, you were the one talking about orbital balance in post 12, Cleetus.

This is delicious, so I'll wait to see if anyone can point out to you why you're wrong.

Of course, that's what you always do, but it never happens. You can't show me I'm wrong because you're incapable of doing so because you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

Where you got confused was thinking that since more mass would not increase their speed, the orbit would remain intact.

Gentle readers, can any of you tell Einstein here why this is illogical?

What poor science knowledge, what militancy in that ignorance.

I still said nothing about the atmosphere.

So its confirmed, you breathe through a mask from a tank. That must be very difficult to drag that around all day long. Sex life must be non-existent.

I only need let your poor science knowledge simmer here for the Gentle Reader to marvel at.

You're so bitter, even when you agree, your bitterness forces you to be jerk troll. Lol. Your suffering tugs at my heart.

Change the weight of these space bodies too much by transferring materials ( ie. like gold from Mars to Earth) and we could change the orbits of these bodies. In the case of Earth, that would be immediately catastrophic.

Hahahahahaha! Venturing out into Science is not your forte.

The orbits of the planets are  primarily dependent on the mass of the Sun, so if their mass changes, their orbits remain intact. You can see that here in Keplers laws...

it can be solved with solar panels and batteries which would store the energy for nighttime use.

I said nothing about the atmosphere.

Oh, so you wear a mask and breathe from a tank all day? You don't breathe from the atmosphere like everyone else on the planet? Lol.

We do not live in the same place.

deliberately breathing smoke is still a dazzlingly stupid thing to do.

What is impossible is neurons firing creating a conscious being lol.

Why is that impossible when it's a well known fact?

We have had this discussion before.

Its interesting because what you just explained to Etrnlvw has been said many times before to him, but he just doesn't get it.

please consider the Creator in that process rather than believing that process exists independent of God. Why does any process exist? ask yourself that, why deny God in the process? or why not consider God in that process?

Fine, it's been considered, but since there's no evidence, the idea is pointless to consider further. Got anything else?

t anyone that has legitimately observed spirituality

There is no one on record who has legitimately observed spirituality.

Sorry but you have no grounds to stand on unless you can show that

TESTIMONY-

evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something.

 firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence

 an outward sign

 Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.

a declaration of truth or fact

evidence testifying to something

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

something that furnishes proof : testimony

 broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

Again, you fail to realize what evidence consists of.

No, you fail to understand what evidence consists of.

When you realize what actually exists, then you can respond.

You and your scientists can never dispute the nature of consciousness because itS belongs to spirituality. 

Spirituality is evidence dummy.

You are not me and I do not accept your nonsense and never will.

So you are now claiming the definition of testimonials that I did not create is lying lol? no matter what you deny, testimonials will always be considered as evidence.

They are not evidence for the existence of something, they are only used in court as reference material to back up hard evidence. For some strange reason, you don't seem to understand this very simple concept.

You need to spend a little more time on your own language

stop trying to argue with me

I can't teach you to read. 

What evidence do you need beyond testimonials?

Hard evidence, something that actually exists.

what evidence is congruent with spirituality? 

..that testimonial experience is included as evidence. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar, and don't know what evidence consists of. 

You are talking about yourself, you have no idea what evidence consists of and are lying about it.

I don't rely on what people testify to.

It is called a testimony. You can label that testimony anything you want, but it is evidence.

And now, you just contradicted yourself. Lol.

Learn how to read, then get back to me. 

You love to deny facts, it's amazing. Testimonies are not evidence for the existence of something, if it were, then Unicorns, Leprechauns, Fairies and Pixies would all exist because someone said so. Hard evidence is required for the existence of something, you need to learn that.

Its the same with Consciousness, you deny the fact that it occurs as a result of the brain.

These are all well known facts that you deny. You try to convince others of your denials but they just laugh because it's so absurd.

Here are the media indoctrination tactics from the main news channels:

Testimonies are considered evidence sir. Learn the English language. 

Testimonies are not evidence for the existence of anything, Learn the English language.

But atheism as a position is a denial of The Truth.

With you who plays word games, "The Truth" is your own personal set of religious beliefs.

How does the brain create a conscious being through some neurons firing? as you put it. That would be akin to believing your vehicle drives itself and somehow produced/created the driver.

Cars do drive themselves because they've been given Artificial Intelligence; a brain, your analogy fails.

Consciousness exists independent of the body, mind and brain.

Biological materials have always existed. We have known for ages that they occur in nature. But so what?

Notice how Ethan avoids the elephant in the room.

where did your conscious being come from?

It comes from the brain.

You are actually standing here advocating for filling your lungs with smoke from burning plant material,

I will stick with my "ancient" ways of only taking clean pure air into my lungs.

It's funny that you think our atmosphere is pure and clean. Any idea how much pollution is in the air?

The brain and body cannot create and is incapable of producing that inner awareness or conscious being

My own experiences indicate it so as well.

I know how neural activity works, but what it doesn't do is transform into a conscious being, or a sentient observer. 

I can be tolerant of others. Tolerant implies you believe someone else is wrong yet you still act graciously towards them.

Yet just a few posts above you made it clear you would have a problem with Islamic religious views in your government?  You call that tolerant? I wonder what a tolerant government your religious views would make?

I tolerate religious belief but only one can be true, if any, for the reason that they all contradict the others. My claim to you is that Christianity is true. 

That is very tolerant!

So, you have one place on the planet you probably shouldn't bring your religious views, rituals, evangelism and you call that intolerant. Shall we just all bend over and present our asses for your kicking, too?

Yes, I do.

Really? Yet you just said you want to see religious views in government. Of course, you want YOUR religious views in government and not any other religious views.

What I don't object to is applying laws that are common to all three monotheistic religions, such as, "Do not kill," "do not lie," "do not steal,

I guess creationists don't think they are just people, humans, folks...

They would be if they were sane, reasonable, logical and rationale. But they're not, so if they wish to divorce themselves from reality, like you have, for example, they should have special labels distinguishing them from sane people.

There is no reason why we can't apply our religious views in government.

So, you have no problem with Islamic religious views ruling your government?

It does not protect. It undermines in every way possible.

Yes, it protects YOU from religious oppression. If you lived in a Theocracy, there's a good chance that people in that country can be oppressed or even killed to practice their religion. Is that what you want?

Universities are bastions of secularism where religious and conservative views are suppressed and denied.

These secularists shut down college and university campuses and bar religious or conservative speakers from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Hollywood depicts Christians as stupid, ignorant, intellectually deficient people

The Democrat position is a secular position. It squeezes God out of politics and secular ideology

The media promotes secular ideas and mocks conservatives and Christians.

It should be a place of learning, but like in many socialist societies it is used as a form of propaganda and promoting a particular worldview

A school or uniVERSITY  (unity in diversity) should be open to diversity, not discourage it. I should be able to pray in open, in recognition of my God.

What would you prefer to be called?

Rabbi is not a denomination genius. Dodge much?

Rom 16:16 - Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

Now, will you continue to dodge the question, or will you shock everyone and address it?

You doofuses are so quick to claim wins.

Lol, so when you close your eyes you are no longer observing?

That is correct, and unless some video or other recording.measuring equipment is capturing the event, then it will not be observed.

you no longer exist?

So no, no eyes needed to observe or be the observer read that definition again.

Without eyes you still observe and perceive your being, you still exist, you're an observer.

As you can see, my eyes are required to observe.

Are you saying blind people do not perceive, or observe? They are both aware and conscious. 

eyes are not needed for an observer.

Ears are not needed for you to exist and observe

likewise you as an observer exist independently of the brain and body. Independent of the eyes, ears ect ect.