Total posts: 3,556
Posted in:
Yes, grades determine intelligence, and thermometers determine temperature.
My damn thermometer made it way too cold last week.
Created:
Posted in:
Man, you guys are really into the web site, I've just never seen a web site so foucused on it's own administration.
if I had to describe this web site I'd say it's a website that is about itself.
Plenty of trolls to make sure it's not a debate site...perhaps you should rename it TrollArt.
Created:
Posted in:
Stephen,
So angry, so desperate, so alone.
Maybe I can help.
Send me your tough shit ticket and I'll punch it for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Thank you for reminding me that I have wasted my time :)
A little slow on the uptake there bud.
Created:
Posted in:
Stephen,
Are you saying the abominable snowman is gay?
OK, but why the desperation?
"Methinks the lady doth protesteth too much"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Nope, homosexuality is not mentioned in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.Ezekiel 16:502 Peter 2:7Jude 7So sayeth the YouFound_Lxam? The Bible does not say that, you did.Genesis 2:23-25" The man said,“This is now bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;she shall be called ‘woman,’for she was taken out of man.”24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."
You win kiddie.
You have convinced me that the Bible is actually a guide to which groups of people we should oppress, marginalise and discriminate against.
Now be a good little Trumper and tell me what other groups of people God wants me to hate, I don't want to miss any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well, here's another example.In Genisis, it talks about the creation.During this story, he talks about man, and woman.God made men to be with women. No exceptions.
So sayeth the YouFound_Lxam? Genesis does not say that, you did.
Genesis 1:31 - And God saw every
thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. (EVERY THING that he had made, no exceptions)
1 Peter 2:17 - Honour all men. Love the brotherhood.
Fear God. Honour the king. (ALL men, no
exceptions)
Why would God allow men to be with men, if he didn't create us to be that way in the first place. It is unnatural. It is against Gods creation.
So sayeth the YouFound_Lxam? The Bible does not say that, you did.
So, you can use semantics to fight back what those verses mean.
You mean to say your mind is made up and you don’t
really care what the Bible actually says about it.
But the fact of the matter is that it is a sin in the Bible, and it is shown as a sin.
Nope, it is not shown to be a sin in the bible.
It is very prominent in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is another way to show the sins of homosexuality.
Nope, homosexuality is not mentioned in the story of Sodom
and Gomorrah.
I don’t know who’s feeding you this crap, but if you want to know what the Bible says, maybe you should try actually reading it. Till then, I’ll try to summarize it for you:
Galatians 5:14 - For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself".
You can’t love your neighbor as you love yourself unless you recognize that his sexual orientation is to him, what your sexual orientation is to you.
Hey, you can be as prejudiced as you want, it's no skin off my back, but don't try to pretend you got it from the Bible.
If you are looking for support, you could try the Westboro Baptist Church.
Created:
Posted in:
prejudice is a matter of personal disposition, you don’t really need to use the Bible to support bigotry anyway.Well surely your all caring and loving god wouldn't command the death penalty for two male best friends sharing a fkn tent, would he?You are scraping the barrel sunshine.If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.I think the bold underline is clearly speaking of homosexuality and homosexuals, no matter how you decide to paint it. And YOUR GOD HATES BOTH!
Leviticus 18:7 - “’Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her
Except for the consensus among Biblical Scholars is that neither of these passages was referring to homosexuality as the term is used todayWhich biblical scholars would they be?
Well, it certainly isn't you and your troll boyfriend Brother D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
The fact is, there is no specific mandate against homosexuality in the Bible, and it does not say it is a sin.Except for this one:If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13, NASB)Oh, and this one:‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 NASB95)
Except for the consensus among Biblical Scholars is
that neither of these passages was referring to homosexuality as the term is
used today, in context, they were prohibiting the common practice of intercourse
with male shrine prostitutes at the temples of pagan goddesses.
Oh, and the ancient Hebrews who wrote the Bible did not even have a word for Homosexuality, there is no evidence that the culture understood alternative forms of sexuality.
Oh, and the ancient Hebrews who wrote the Bible did not even have a word for Homosexuality, there is no evidence that the culture understood alternative forms of sexuality.
AND this one:and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, (1 Timothy 1:10, NASB95)Oh, AND this one:Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, (1 Corinthians 6:9, BSB)
AND, as already mentioned, homosexuality was added to these passages in the mid-1900s, originally
they had nothing to do with homosexuality.
Oh, AND all of the references to homosexuality were added to the Bible by people
with an agenda.
But hey, prejudice is a matter of personal disposition, you don’t really need to use the Bible to support bigotry anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
Jesus also said he hadn't come to change the law but to "fulfil it" And the penalty for homosexuality was death.There again , Jesus was far too occupied with gathering an army to help him take what he believed was his rightful place as king of the JEWS to be worried about two males hanging out the back of one another.Maybe when he became king he would have started implementing the law for such a sinful abomination.
Stephen and his boyfriend Brother D think that if they say really stupid shit about Christianity that it makes Christianity look stupid, but that isn't how it works.
When you say stupid shit it makes you look like a stupid shit.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The only obligations you have are to give your mother foot massages.
You just gave Stephen an erection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I'm not THAT old, but I would assume that yes, it existed before the 19th century.Ok, so if it existed before the 19th century, we could safely assume, that people had a name for the practice of homosexual acts or being homosexual in general. It wasn't the word homosexual, so what was it?
Hebrew and Aramaic had no word for it, Paul wrote in Koine
Greek, and if he had intended to refer to the practice of homosexuality, he
would have used the word "paiderasste".
The fact is, there is no specific mandate against homosexuality in the Bible, and it does not say it is a sin.
The fact is, there is no specific mandate against homosexuality in the Bible, and it does not say it is a sin.
What is clear is that Christ never said a single word about homosexuality, not one word. What He did do is tell us not to judge others, and he did that over and over again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
That's correct, the word "homosexuality" did not exist untill the 19th century.No, my question was: Did homosexuality itself exist before the 19th century?
I'm not THAT old, but I would assume that yes, it existed before the 19th century.
Created:
Posted in:
Why not ask the Reverend Tradesecret for some private tuition. He is highly qualified and accredited in all things theological and biblical and he has direct and personal experience in the "abomination" that god referrers to " men lying with men as one would a woman"?
You are almost as obsessed with this Tradesecret as you are with your mom, that's a lot of fantasizing you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, homosexuality didn't exist until the 19th century?
That's correct, the word "homosexuality" did not exist untill the 19th century.
Created:
Posted in:
FM! that question has been asked and answered already, twice? Are you that desperate for conversation that you have to plagiarise questions that others have already asked and answers already given? 🤦♂️
You fantasize having sex with your mother, EEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Even if one is choosing what one wants,Is it not still a choice?
I didn't choose my orientation, did you choose yours? Could you choose to change your orientation? I could not.
Hm,Or to put it another way,I suppose you might mean sexual orientation,In the same way as pain, hunger, arousal,An involuntary reaction, reflex,
I just don't think I could choose to be gay, and I assume gay people can't choose to be heterosexual. Whenever someone who says being gay is a choice is asked if they chose their orientation, they always say no, always. Not once has someone said it could have gone either way for them, and yet, they insist it could have gone either way for a gay person, and they chose to be gay.
But pain tolerance can grow,Hunger can be mitigated,Arousal can be controlled.
And you could be aroused by a man?
Whether by mechanical means,Or habituation.. . .I don't mean any of this as negative towards homosexuals,I just disagree with the argument that sexuality is not alterable, generally speaking.
How would you go about altering your sexuality? What do you think you could do to become gay?
I'm not saying homosexuals should not be homosexual,Or that it's a finger snap.Depression, anger, happiness, kindness, are controllable,But some people still find such difficult to control.
I have a very bad visceral reaction to considering having sex with a man, I'm not saying homosexuals should not be homosexual either, but for me, ewwww, and I think that is the source of such prejudice against gay people, we think the ewwww applies to them, but I presume they think ewwww when they try to imagine sex with the opposite sex.
Whenever I see two men being intimate on TV I say ewwww, my wife then accuses me of being homophobic, I don't think I am, but I do have that visceral reaction, that's how I know I couldn't have chosen to be gay. Assuming the same applies to gay people, I don't think they could choose to be straight if they have the same ewwww response to thinking about it.
The trick is don't think about it, I don't go ewww when I meet a gay person, mostly because I don't think about what it would be like to have sex with them.
I love dogs, but if I think of having sex with one, I go ewwww, seems to me that people who are prejudiced against gay people should just stop thinking about having sex with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So you chose to be heterosexual, it could have gone either way. Did the Bible help you decide?Yes, I guess if I was attracted to men instead of women, then it could have gone either way.The bible leads me to the righteous path. I have always been heterosexual. To assume the Bible helped me decide, is also assuming that I was confused about my sexual preference, which I have never been confused about.
If it wasn't a choice for you, then why do you think it's a choice for gay people?
Created:
Posted in:
You keep telling us you know your bible very well. Try reading Corinthians, Acts , 1 Timothy, Romans. Or will you forever need spoon feeding,
None of the passages you are referring to refer to “Homosexuality” in the New Testament.
The word homosexual was not even coined until the 19th century
and the various New Testament translations of the word homosexual that were inserted after 1946 are agenda
driven at best.
The two words that are commonly translated into the word
“homosexual” are the Koine Greek words "malakoi" and
"arsenokoitai”. "Malakoi"
literally means "soft" or "fine" and in fact, the Bible
translates the word “malakoi” in both Matthew 11:8 and in Luke 7:25 into the
word "fine" in reference to clothing. In the early Christian church the word “malakoi” was interpreted as
referring to people who were "soft" or tentative in their faith or
sometimes to people that were "lazy". In that era various
non-Biblical uses of the word “Malakoi” were commonly a reference to people that
were "lazy". If Paul had intended to refer to homosexuality he would
have used the word "paiderasste", which is the Koine Greek word for
homosexual. The other two prevalent
languages in those days, Hebrew and Aramaic, don’t even have a word for the
term homosexual because early Jews believed that all people were born
heterosexual and they did not understand alternative forms of sexuality.
The other Greek word which is found in Paul's letters and is
commonly translated into “homosexual” in the New Testament, is "arsenokoitai". Prior
to the subject twentieth century translations, the word
"arsenokoitai" had never been encountered, and therefore must have
been translated into “homosexual” on an agenda driven basis. It has since been
encountered in several other ancient texts and in those contexts; translation
of "arsenokoitai" into the word “homosexual” makes no sense. Most “real” scholars (without an
agenda) believe that Paul was speaking about "softness" of faith with
the use "Malakoi", his contention was most likely that being
tentative in your commitment to the Lord was an abomination.
Even if you do translate Paul's words into a condemnation of
homosexuality, and you have to really want to I think, Paul stated quite
explicitly that he was offering only his opinions in his letters "I have
no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion..." And in Paul's opinion,
nobody should marry, and women should always wear a veil too. How many of you
who reference the Bible to condemn homosexuality also believe that God mandated
that we should not marry and that women should always wear veils?
Historically speaking, at some time or another, Paul's
writings have been taken out of context to support the oppression of
practically every minority on God's green earth, including Jews, children,
women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice
people, Native Americans, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious
reformers, the mentally ill, and the list goes on and on….OK, so maybe
politician deserve it...but that's it :)
Let’s also remember that when Paul wrote these letters, he
was writing about Jesus Christ and Christ never said a single word about homosexuality,
not one word. He did say that we are all loved, valued, redeemed, and counted
as precious by God, no matter how we might be judged by a prejudiced world.
Another thing he did was tell us not to judge others, and that is not a matter
of translation, it is very clear that he said that over and over again.
There is no honest case that can be made for the contention
so often stated on these boards that “God said homosexuality is a sin”. That
tactic of supporting a prejudicial agenda is not based on an honest translation
of the New Testament and it is not based on anything Jesus said or did.
Love is love; it doesn't fit into neat little
categories in spite of what so many people want to believe. What the Bible
teaches is that Love conquers all prejudice and overcomes all divisions among
mankind. There is nothing “unnatural” about a shared love between two
consensual adults if that experience brings both partners into a fuller state
of being, and there is no mandate against adult consensual homosexuality in the
Bible.
You keep telling us you know your bible very well. Try reading Corinthians, Acts , 1 Timothy, Romans. Or will you forever need spoon feeding, like that other thick bible dunce the Reverend Tradesecret who tells us often about his own sexual deviances and his own homosexual experimentations?
That said, those posts in the other thread sexualizing your mother, that is unnatural as hell, even if it's consensual between you and your mother, it's wrong, it's creepy, and it's perverted.
like that other thick bible dunce the Reverend Tradesecret who tells us often about his own sexual deviances and his own homosexual experimentations?
You spend a lot of time diverting to Tradesecret, I really hope you don't think that justifies your abnormal feelings about your mother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR CHILD-LIKE QUOTES IN YOU RUNNING AWAY FROM YOU BEING BIBLE IGNORANT TO CHRISTIANS AND EVOLUTION:"I'm sorry, but this obsession you and Stephen have with sexually fantasizing sons with thier mothers, that is just beyond creepy.""You and BrotherD really get off on this, in fact, you have an erection now, don't you.""BrotherD.Thomas and Stephen, enough of your courtship ritual, get a room."Uh, is the above your final answer in you not being able to understand that pseudo-christians CANNOT, and I repeat, CANNOT accept evolution like you stupidly say they should? Your quotes above are nothing but a diversion tactic to hide behind because you still don't comprehend that pseudo-christians and evolution are like oil and water, they don't mix! Get it? Maybe? Maybe tomorrow? LOL!
Evolution is a completely different conversation, I am commenting on your sexual fantasies about mothers and sons, it's creepy as hell.
Regarding evolution, I think you are an idiot, and regarding your mother, I think you are a pervert.
What will be your next diversionary tactic to the FACT that you were made the fool as shown in the link below?
Yeah, I got it, you are mentally incapable of grasping anything intellectually deeper than literalism, so I accept that you are simply unable to have an intelligent conversation about evolution or the Bible.
But the pervert side, that has nothing to do with your low IQ, it's just about being creepy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I've read the Bible, please provide the verses that say it is a sin.Leviticus 18:22: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
That's from the Old Testament, is there anything from the New Testament that provides this guidance to Christians.
Are you saying your sexual orientation was a choice? You could have chosen to be gay?Yes, people can choose their sexual preference. Not their personal sexual preference (what they would like to be) but their sexual preference when it comes to whom they are attracted to.
So you chose to be heterosexual, it could have gone either way. Did the Bible help you decide?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
A fact based one.
What facts are you referring to, what facts are you basing your opinion that God doesn't exist on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There is no instance where you cannot change your personal desires.
Are you saying your sexual orientation was a choice? You could have chosen to be gay?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Why is it a sin.All of the verses in the bible that say it is a sin.If you are going to argue against the Bible, you should at least read it first.
I've read the Bible, please provide the verses that say it is a sin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
In his seminal
book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer pointed out
how the image of Jesus image had changed to reflect the times and the personal
proclivities of the various authors that had addressed the subject. He wrote that looking for a human Jesus is like looking down a well.
"You’re inclined to see your own reflection in the water." Schweitzer
showed explicitly that people use the gospels as a
mirror for their own beliefs, projecting their own values onto the subject and
in the end, reconstructing Jesus in their own self-images.
I'm sorry, but this obsession you and Stephen have with sexually fantasizing sons with thier mothers, that is just beyond creepy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I'm not "whining". I am highlighting the fact that this extremely young rape victim , Mary, displayed some very strange behaviour on realising that the baby she had conceived against her will and would be forced to carry for nine months seemed very elated on learning that this bastard child would suffer and die a very cruel death
You and BrotherD really get off on this, in fact, you have an erection now, don't you.
It's time for you and BrotherD to go take a shower.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas and Stephen, enough of your courtship ritual, get a room.
You're just boring the shit out of everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
Who's your Daddy?Irrelevant.But the Father of Jesus was the acting Gabriel, a priest. It was he , it appears, that had raped the very young maiden Mary. Poor girl didn't know what was going on. She had no say in the matter. But she appears to have come to terms with the idea of having to be the unwilling receptor and vessel of the holy sperm of the priest Gabriel.Maybe this is why she was such a poor mother. And maybe the answer to the question of why Mary was so excited knowing that the chid that she was forced to carry and give birth to was going to suffer a cruel torture and death for the sins of his father, Gabriel?I hope that helps.
You need to whine at somebody who gives a crap.
If you are just too afraid to talk to the religious person that you are so upset with, maybe try therapy.
I hope that helps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't like Tromp anymore
Of course you don't like Trump anymore, he humiliated you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its because he is sexually attracted to missiles.
It's penis envy, tiny dick, big missles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
So I triggered the end of the world. Sorry guys.
I hate it when that happens.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I'm pretty sure being guilty when you are charged with a serious crime is not irrelevent.The statement you made was not relevant to what I was saying is obviously what I meant
Oh, so you were saying you are irrelevent, well duh, everybody knows that, it goes without saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Kim Jong Un has a gender neutral name. So does his father Kim Jong il, and his grandfather Kim il Sung.
So they are non-binary, that explains a lot. Kim Jong Un's obsession with missles always did seem sexual in nature.
Gender neutral names are just some of the things that make North Korea so great at human rights.
Yeah, it's that woman's touch.
Created:
Posted in:
Who's your Daddy?
Not me.
Don't be so afraid, talk to whoever it is got you so upset.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
At least he did not demand 10 percent for the Big Guy
I understand, Trump has utterly humiliated his supporters, deflecting is all you have left.
Created:
Posted in:
Stephen, I don't know why I assumed all your "acting out" was about your father, but now I'm thinking it's your mother that is religious and you are afraid to talk to her about it.
So the religious people on the boards, they your momma?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Nobody below the age of 75 reads news papers. Stupid take.
Title should have been "Rural people don’t read"
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Especially if the ham sandwich is guilty as hell.Irrelevant. The point is indictments are easy to get.
I'm pretty sure being guilty when you are charged with a serious crime is not irrelevent.
Sure, it's Irrelevent to his supporters, but criminal guilt, lies, and racism give his supporters an erection.
Now go take a cold shower.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
In my opinion, this site cannot be interesting without a healthy contingent of extremely unpleasant people on it.
Don't worry, there are still plenty of extremely unpleasant people here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Precisely as far as the Taliban would go. If they want to live in the Weimar Republic they can move to a blue state, where without republicans to intervene in such things would legalize shit like pedophilia.
It's only a matter of time, our cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic sexual abusers of children operating a global child sex trafficking ring will win in the end.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
"you can indict a ham sandwich". It's not particularly hard to do
Especially if the ham sandwich is guilty as hell.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It will take more than that to take down the God Emperor.
Your orange Messiah has already crashed and burned, prosecution is what's left.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
People are too easily offended.However, here at Debate Art, me and my employees value the opinions of our customers so we shall accommodate your concerns.If he does anything we consider to be off-limits, my team shall lock his account so he can’t post for a week!Should he seriously upset you, DM me and I’ll perma-ban him.
How about Best.Korea threatening our lives, is that serious enough for you.
Be advised, I think he's trying to bore us to death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I actually like when Best.Korea trolls so I will not vote for Wylted
I actually ignore Best.Korea, so I will not vote for Wylted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Sidewalker,Jesus and I are disturbed in that you didn't recognize my correction to your assumed knowledge that evolution does not upset the tenets of Christianity, where it most certainly does as shown in my link herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8366/post-links/362130Put this knowledge in your quiver for the next time, you're welcome.
I don't like to feed trolls, and I don't believe you are a Christian.
Nevertheless, I think it is a very weak faith that is threatened by the theory of evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess you don't like twisted sister.
I actually do have a twisted sister that I don't like, and yes, she is a Trumper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The first type of evidence supporting the existence of dark matter has to do with the way dark matter affects the movement of celestial bodies. In our solar system, almost all of the mass is in the sun. The innermost planets like Mercury and Venus orbit the sun the fastest. As the distance from the sun increases, the speed at which planets move decreases. This is because there is less gravitational pull from the sun on planets farther out and, to keep from spiraling into or away from the sun, they must move slower. We can apply a similar analogy to galaxies. If we assume that the bright part of a galaxy shows where most of the mass is, then most of the mass is near the center, and at the dim edge of a galaxy there should not be much mass. Therefore, objects orbiting far from the center of the galaxy should move slower than objects closer to the center, just like the planets in our solar system.
Our
laws of gravity don’t hold up unless we find something that is holding the
galaxies together, there must be something else, something unobserved and
perhaps unobservable – some kind of unseen matter that emits no radiation, and
we say we know it by its secondary effects, it is an “inferred” phenomena. And
what is that secondary, inferred phenomena? It is the fact that the current theoretical framework doesn’t explain
the observations. But we can never accept that our
theories might be wrong or at least incomplete, it must be the universe that is
wrong or incomplete,
so we decide that the universe that the conceptual framework was supposed to
explain is only a small percentage of reality, the majority of it is unobserved
and unobservable, and we will call it dark matter because it is unobserved and
unobservable. The facts didn’t fit the
conceptual framework, so we change the facts.
It seems we have gone from a quantum realm of pure possibility that goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by an observer, who apparently conjures a particle into existence out of a mathematical haze, to an entire realm of pure abstraction, that goes unrealized until it is “collapsed” by a theory, and that apparently conjures entire universes into existence out of a mathematical haze. And I have to wonder if we are still doing science.
To test this hypothesis, scientists recorded the incoming light from a distant spiral galaxy (our home galaxy, the Milky Way, is also considered a spiral galaxy) and plotted the velocities of the stars vs. their distances from the center of the galaxy. Scientists discovered that the stars were not behaving in the way anticipated. They found that the stars farther away from the center were moving much faster than predicted.
Somewhere
along the way, the observed universe we were trying to understand with our
theories became subordinate to the theories, rather than adjusting the theories
to fit the facts, we began adjusting the facts to fit the theories. The observed universe we were trying to understand with our
theories was no longer reality, it was just a fraction of reality, and then one
day that contrivance wasn’t even the universe anymore, it was just one infinitesimal
piece of reality, one of an infinite number of universes, all of them unobserved
and unobservable of course, and all so the sacred theories could remain intact.
The enterprise of science has largely abandoned its reliance on observations and gone into the business of manufacturing unobserved and unobservable realities in order to support the theories. I’m not really sure what this process is, but I know what it isn’t, it isn’t science, it’s something else, and because it is based on unobserved and unobservable realities, its completely faith based.
Einstein
said “It is the theory that allows us to see the facts”, but I don’t think he
ever said anything about inventing facts to fit the theory. I’m sure he never
said anything about the theory being what is most real, and that reality should
just be altered to fit the theory.
The only way this is possible is if there is more mass in the outer parts of galaxies than we can observe.
The observed facts didn’t fit the conceptual
framework, and our theories can’t be wrong, so the only way this is possible is
if we change the facts to fit the theory?
The fact that we are unable to see this mass, because it is not emitting light, suggests the presence of dark matter.
We know it exists because we don’t observe
it? Lack of evidence is evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You love Trump, because you’re an idiot.At least I love an American. You’re in love with a Corrupt Ukrainians
Trump is no American.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I blame Republican tolerance for, even celebration of Trump's outrageous, blatant corruption of Americans values.George Santos is also to blame right, LOL?If you were running against this guy in an election, wouldn't you have had someone dig up this dirt on him?Not saying it would have made a difference. I did see that one candidate literally had a stroke which impaired his ability to cognitively function at even a middle school level get elected, his opponent was a known con artist though.Would you as a Democrat running against that guy, do at least one attack and attacking his heterosexuality or any of that other stuff you brought up?
Oh, what a big surprise, it's the Democrats fault, you don't even know who ran against Santos, but you do know it's the Democrts fault.
LOL, this winter storm running across the country, that's Biden's fault, right?
Created: