Total posts: 2,182
False. You don’t know what you’re talking about. It is indisputable that fossil fuels on this planet will some day be exhausted. Would that mean the end of the world? It just needs to be phased out methodically in as many areas as possible and replaced with renewable energy. If you lived in the 1800s you would have been crying about the end of the whaling industry.
No, I think you are misunderstanding the argument. Biden's plan is to get rid of all fossil fuels right now and replace them with renewable energy. But renewable energy doesn't have the capability of running the U.S. by itself.
And some aspects of renewable energy don't run entirely on renewable energy. Take solar panels.
The PV cells in solar panels are made of silicon, which we need to mine.
I think we are agreeing in some aspect of this argument. You are saying," It just needs to be phased out methodically in as many areas as possible and replaced with renewable energy."
And I am saying," I'm not saying fossil fuels is the way to go in the future, but instead we should find a better source of energy (Fusion Energy) to use instead of fossil fuels. And when we do find it, then we slowly transition from fossil fuels to that new source, so we still have a stable energy source through the transition."
The part we disagree on, is you believe that fossil fuels are the answer, while I believe a better source of energy, like Fusion Energy, is the solution.
Created:
So now you know, and you can go tell all your high school friends that American capitalism hasn’t built a significant oil refinery in this country since the mid to late 70’s. Long before Joe Biden was President. Get it genius? I’m sure you had no idea about US oil refining capacity until I dropped the bomb on you. Your welcome.
Listen. I'm not going to argue semantics. Obviously, you can't listen to facts being thrown at your face.
The fact of the matter is, that Joe Biden has an idea, to remove all fossil fuels.
And that idea would ruin the U.S.
End of story.
Created:
Did you even read the article I provided?
"As of January 1, 2022, there were 130 operable petroleum refineries in the United States.
The newest refinery in the United States is the Texas International Terminals 45,000 b/cd refinery in Channelview, Texas, which was operable on January 1, 2022, but actually started operating in February, 2022."
The newest refinery in the United States is the Texas International Terminals 45,000 b/cd refinery in Channelview, Texas, which was operable on January 1, 2022, but actually started operating in February, 2022."
The newest refineries currently operating in the United States
Now it is true that the last significant refinery in the USA, was built in 1976, but you're still getting your dates wrong.
" The last significant refinery built in the United States was in 1976. (A small refinery came online in 2020 in North Dakota). Over the last two years, due to reduced demand from the pandemic and Presidnt Biden’s stated policy to reduce the demand for petroleum products, U.S. refineries have been shut down or repurposed to become biofuel refineries. In a business where investments have a payout period of a decade or more, it is unlikely for investment to be spent on policies where the demand is to be reduced. Wirth stated rhetorically, “How do you go to your board, how do you go to your shareholders and say ‘we’re going to spend billions of dollars on new capacity in a market that is, you know, the policy is taking you in the other direction.”"
Created:
Year built First operated Location Original owner Original capacity b/cd Current owner 2022Capacityb/cd
2018 2019 Channelview, Texas Targa Resources 35,000 Hartree Partners 45,000
No, you need to get your facts strait.
Created:
Posted in:
If you don't, then you and the arguments you provide which do not follow its rules are irrational by definition. This automatically disqualifies your case from being proof of God because proof at minimum, needs to be in accordance with the laws of logic.If you do, then when it is pointed out to you that something does not follow said laws you cannot keep advancing the point as if this is not a problem for you. It absolutely is (see previous paragraph).
Ok, fair point.
This whole statement is a jumbled mess. What are you calling a god? Earlier you argued for God of the bible, but here all you're arguing is pantheism. My pencil exists, is that proof of God? How does the existence of my pencil lead to the conclusion that the bible is correct? Please define what you are talking about.
Simply it is taking steps back. Let's use your pencil as an example.
A pencil exists, how was it made?
(Let's just focus on the wooden part of the pencil for a second.)
The pencil is made of wood, but where does the wood come from?
The wood comes from trees, but where do the trees come from?
The trees come from seeds, but where do the seeds come from?
Etc.
You could link any apparent thing all the way back to the creation of the universe, therefore things existing help with proving Gods existence.
First of all, no one is arguing that time did not have a beginning. Some theorize as to how it's possible that time didn't, but as far as we can tell, time itself began at the point of the big bang.
I might be wrong, but I do recall someone saying that in this forum. No matter though, I'm not going through 400+ posts to check.
More importantly however, the whole point I just made was that the very concept of a "cause" with regards to how or why time began is logically incoherent. A cause is a product of time, it cannot therefore be applied outside of it.I've repeated this numerous times yet you keep pretending that God somehow explains it making your belief rationally preferable. This is nonsense. Again, if you believe in the laws of logic then a logically self defeating concept needs to be abandoned. A "cause for time" is logically self defeating right there alongside a 5 sided triangle, so claiming that God somehow explains it disqualifies your argument from rational consideration.
Ok fair point. But then I ask you this.
Taking into consideration your last quote,"...but as far as we can tell, time itself began at the point of the big bang."
It is safe to assume that you believe time did indeed have a beginning.
But then you also argue that a "...cause with regards to how or why time began is logically incoherent."
So how would you explain what started time? You agree that time started at the Big Bang, but then you say it is logically incoherent to assume that something cause time to exist. Again, I say something can't come from nothing.
Existing outside of time... That's another story, especially when you're talking about a being. A being by definition would need to function. Functioning is a process of occurrences acting in succession. This requires time.
That is a definition......given what we know.
You even said before," Logically speaking, something could conceivably exist outside of the laws of physics."
So, is it possible that there is a being that is able to exist outside of time?
From what we know, no, but then again, we don't know everything.
Earlier I used decision making as an example. That requires one to begin in a state of being undecided and move to a state of being decided. If there's no time there could be no movement and therefore no change. Thus no being outside of time could make decisions. Is this the God you believe in? A static being that doesn't think, doesn't move, doesn't change states in any way? That essentially makes him nothing more than an eternal statue, which by the way logically defeats everything you claim he is responsible for.
Let me rephrase my argument. He exists out of time, as we know it.
Let me use another example, just like my box example.
There is a river. The river represents time.
There is a riverbank. The riverbank represents where God exists.
God is able to move with the current of the river, and against the current of the river. He is able to move into the river, and out of the river.
So let me correct myself. It wouldn't be excluding time entirely but perceiving it in a different way.
I never claimed I could prove how the singularity came into existence. That's the difference between us, I'm not afraid to admit there are things I do not know. This is all one giant strawman you create because you cannot substantiate your beliefs so you need to pretend mine are just as intellectually invalid.
I never claimed you could either. I said the opposite in fact. I said you couldn't.
But you did bring it up as an argument. And when you use that argument, that you can't prove, to counter my argument that I can't prove, that is called being a hypocrite.
Science is not about proving the beginnings of existence, it's about following the evidence to it's logical conclusions and stopping at the point in which we have no further evidence. That's how reasoned people operate.
If you are stopping at the point, in which you have no further evidence, then you have failed to prove something. Then that proves that that thing is flawed.
The difference between science/Atheism and Christianity, is that we have an explanation for our existence. Believe it or not, but Christians also follow principles of science as well. But when we get to that point where we have no further, scientific evidence, we turn to our Lord and Savior, and have faith in him. Atheists just assume something happened, and they would be right. Something did happen.
If you want to prove God existence you need to deal with the fact that half of what you're saying is logically incoherent. You don't get to appeal to the mystical nature of God as having abilities we can't possibly understand. If the being you believe in isn't bound by the laws of logic then your belief is by definition irrational and could not possibly be proven. It could be accepted, but that's not proof. Anything could be accepted.
Fair point as well.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
America doesn't negotiate. That is what we have said for a long time.
That is why it's embarrassing.
Created:
This reference you are using, like most of the references you use, are not credible sources of information. That UCSB website is very amateurish and citing a Trump press release like before shows you are clueless. You need to work on your critical thinking skills.
No, you're just upset, that I know more about you do on this topic, and I take the time to do my research. But if that link doesn't suffice for you, I can find another one.
"Biden denied the donor’s association to the fossil fuel industry before calling the young woman “kiddo” and taking her hand. He said, “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.”
The activist, 24-year-old Rebecca Beaulieu, later said she appreciated that Biden took her question seriously, but that he was not satisfied with Biden’s plan to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050."
The activist, 24-year-old Rebecca Beaulieu, later said she appreciated that Biden took her question seriously, but that he was not satisfied with Biden’s plan to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050."
Oh, also this one too:
"White House says Biden still working to end fossil fuels: 'You can do both'"
And when Biden said “we would work it out” it being fossil fuels, what do you think he was saying? The United States would phase out fossil fuels? Starting with coal? That’s exactly what we need to be doing and the fact is oil companies are thinking that way too. We haven’t built an oil refinery in this country since 1973. That’s because oil companies know that fossil fuels are the past, not the future.
"As of January 1, 2022, there were 130 operable petroleum refineries in the United States.
The newest refinery in the United States is the Texas International Terminals 45,000 b/cd refinery in Channelview, Texas, which was operable on January 1, 2022, but actually started operating in February, 2022.
However, the newest refinery with significant downstream unit capacity is Marathon's facility in Garyville, Louisiana. That facility came online in 1977 with an initial atmospheric distillation unit capacity of 200,000 b/cd, and as of January 1, 2022, it had a capacity of 585,000 b/cd.
Capacity has also been added to existing refineries through upgrades or new construction. Some recent examples of large increases include:
- In 2012, Motiva upgraded its refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, making it the largest U.S. refinery, with a capacity of 626,000 b/cd as of January 1, 2022.
- In 2015, Valero expanded its Corpus Christi, Texas refinery after previous expansions, bringing its capacity as of January 1, 2022, to 290,000 b/cd."
First of all, you need to get your facts strait.
Yes, the newest refinery, with significant downstream unit capacity, came online in 1977
But the newest one, became operable on January 1, 2022.
And to add to that point, do you see the increase of unit capacity. Thats why as of right now, we need to keep these oil refineries, because the majority or our power comes from it.
We also use it for making 2/3 of our clothing.
Chemicals that we use to clean our houses.
Lubricants
Medicins that we use to help the sick.
Fertilizers for our soil so we can grow more food.
Heating for our houses.
And our millitary jets run on this stuff as well. Do you really think it would be a good idea to get rid of military jets?
It would be chaos if we just immediately got rid of all of these oil refineries and other refineries. We would be struggling to use our own power. With Bidens plan in place, we would be only dependent on only renewable resources, which only makes up 12.5% of our energy today.
I'm not saying fossil fuels is the way to go in the future, but instead we should find a better source of energy (Fusion Energy) to use instead of fossil fuels. And when we do find it, then we slowly transition from fossil fuels to that new source, so we still have a stable energy source through the transition.
We have a big advantage of perspective on you kid. You can read about these current events that happened when you were 8 or 9. We lived them.
I lived through Covid too. I'm living through this right now.
From now on, I am going to just ignore comments about my age, given that they provide nothing for my opponent's arguments, and is just a way for them to get away from the topic at hand.
The fact of the matter is that we need to focus on the task at hand, not the far, far future.
There have already been study's done, that prove all of the propaganda around the world ending soon if we don't quit fossil fuels, and switch to clean energy, is all just a hoax.
We need to be worried about our enemy's.
Do you see any other of our big threats, like China and Russia doing what we are doing with fossil fuels? No.
They are just laughing in our faces while they are building up more power and technology. And we are worried about saving the planet?
We need to focus on that, before we get into other problems, that won't even show up for a long, time.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Oh pulease, you have been very active lately, it's no secret that you drank the Trump Kool Aid, and we know how and why your personality cult critiques Biden.
Believe what you want, but there are some things I agree with Biden on, and some things I disagree with Trump on.
I have only been supporting Trump and critiquing Biden lately because of the things that have been happening right now.
No, but I can assure you that if we were talking to someone from history who actually experienced the historical event, we'd be asking them what happened, not telling them what happened.
Yea, witnesses through the news and media, which by the way is very biased to the Democratic party at the moment.
People like you only know how to try to throw out insults, when you don't have anything else to argue.
Now you want to talk about the actual topic of this forum, then be my guest.
Created:
Trump embraced quack science for medical advisors, medications and treatments
This is true. He hired some characters, who didn't understand what they were doing.
And for Trump being responsible for the deaths, he wasn't. The US population is roughly around 331.9 million people. Only 1.09 million Americans died from Covid. And the constitution of the USA give people the freedom to do what they want to, remember? So the majority of people who got sick were sick by there own doing.
And did you realize the the same day Covid reached the US, Biden officially became the President? I'm not saying blame Biden for all of those deaths, but it wasn't Trumps doing.
And what is wrong with Trump trusting China? Do you really think he knew that China would lose control of the virus? Do you really think he knew that information?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Can something exist that breaks the laws of physics? Yes or No?
We don't know for sure. But then I say again, that God isn't something that exists, he is everything. He is omnipotent, and indescribable. The proof for God isn't that he exists though he does exist. The proof for God is that everything exists, therefore he exists.
Cause and effect is necessarily a product of time, the very notion of what caused time is logically incoherent. Nothing could cause time to start because there would have to be time in order for the cause to operate within.
And I have already been over this as well.
Time can be measured. It is called spacetime. We can use spacetime to measure objects, and time, all the way back to one point, because the universe is expanding. So we just pull back the clock. We can see that time, and space all came down to one point. Now how is that possible? I have already provided an explanation that time had to of had a beginning. But I will provide it again just for the sake of the argument.
"Back to the sand dunes analogy, the quantum realm would be apparent as we come closer. We first see the granularity, then the individual grains of sand, the “quanta” of the beach field. Taking this image to describe space, in a quantum as opposed to classical theory of gravity, both space and time would be granular, discontinuous. You couldn’t think of a distance between two points or of a time interval between two events. Everything fluctuates wildly. Physics as we know it falls apart.
So, people attempt to construct alternative theories where gravity and thus space and time can be described as quantized fields. However, irrespective of these ideas, there is always a transition from the quantum to the classical realm. Even if linear flowing time wouldn’t make sense in a quantum space-time, it has to as the quantum cosmos transitions to the classical cosmos we live in. In a sense, as Saint Augustine had remarked some 16 centuries ago, space and time emerge with Creation. Here, Creation is precisely this transition from a quantum to a classical time. Time begins when it starts ticking, that is, when physical processes take place in the background of a classical space-time. Anything that happened before has been erased from cosmic memory."
So, people attempt to construct alternative theories where gravity and thus space and time can be described as quantized fields. However, irrespective of these ideas, there is always a transition from the quantum to the classical realm. Even if linear flowing time wouldn’t make sense in a quantum space-time, it has to as the quantum cosmos transitions to the classical cosmos we live in. In a sense, as Saint Augustine had remarked some 16 centuries ago, space and time emerge with Creation. Here, Creation is precisely this transition from a quantum to a classical time. Time begins when it starts ticking, that is, when physical processes take place in the background of a classical space-time. Anything that happened before has been erased from cosmic memory."
"Now, inflationary cosmology... The idea there, and in some versions of superstring theories, is that our universe is not unique: there are many, possibly infinitely many universes out there, bubbles sprouting from an eternal realm called the multiverse. There is no time in the multiverse itself. But each one of these baby universes that transitions to a large, classical universe will have a well-defined arrow of time. Ours happens to be one of the babies that worked out, and kept growing and growing and is still doing so after 13.7 billion years.
So, within our universe, time had a beginning."
So, within our universe, time had a beginning."
This also applies to God. Do you believe God makes decisions? If he does then by definition that would require him to begin in a state where he is undecided, and move to a state where he is decided. That movement cannot logically happen if there is no time.
He exists outside of time. Therefore, he is not bound to time or physics.
And yet again you continue to ask us what caused the singularity to come into existence as if this question is a death nail to the theory while making no attempt to answer the question of what caused God to come into existence. Either it is possible for something to exist without a cause or it isn't. You don't get to just pretend the rule applies to your explanation but not to ours. That's called being a hypocrite, and it is the point where one is no longer deserving of the presumption of being a rational individual.
I have answered the question of what caused God to come into existence. He didn't come into existence, because he has always been there. He has always existed, because he exists outside of time. Therefore he is not bound to what we experience.
I only continue to ask you what caused the singularity to come into existence, because you cannot prove how it did, using science that has proved everything else thus far.
And the only hypocrite is the people telling me faith isn't a valid proof. Atheists have to have more faith in there beliefs of how the universe and everything came to be, than Christians do. Again, you are really going to tell me that my faith that God exists proves nothing, while you stand there and say that your faith in the existence of something coming from nothing is valid?
If we are to use the principles of science, time, physics, and chemistry etc., there would be no explanation for the singularity coming from nothing. True the same would be valid for God, but the fact that you would bring up such an argument like the singularity, to counter the argument for God, proves the hypocrisy.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
You were twelve when he said that, try harder and I'll bet you can find things he said before you were born to be upset about.You were nine when Trump ran, probably not old enough to follow the news at that time but trust us, if you want to compare broken campaign promises between Trump and Biden you are going to look like an idiot.
Again, when did I say I want to compare broken campaign promises?
I made a small comment referring to Biden not keeping his promises. I did not compare him to Trump. In fact, I did not even bring up Trump on this forum.
It was in fact, Double_R, who was the one who started the comparison between the two:
The previous president's signature campaign promise was that he would build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. He didn't build it and Mexico sure as hell didn't pay for it, yet I somehow missed your thread on that.All candidates make promises there's no way they can keep. That's what happens when you have an electorate thoroughly ignorant on how our government works and instead thinks presidents are kings. Any candidate who honestly tells the voters what they wouldn't be able to accomplish because congress would never pass it wouldn't get elected.
And the fact about my age.
Yes I am young, and I was even younger when all of this took place. But does justify the argument that I can't have a say in this, because I was too young to understand it? No. People on this Forum, including yourselves, argue a lot about history. Should it be said that you weren't even born then, so you don't understand?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Trumpet and his MAGA cult, Republican officials/authorities in jail,
Maybe more than a "little bit political."
Created:
We already have limitless energy delivered for free everyday from our nearby life giving star.We just fail to utilise it.
No, we just don't have enough resources ourselves to utilize it.
For instance, we don't have an infinite supplied of PV cells for our solar panels.
We have to mine materials for those.
But you do have a point in saying we don't utilize it as much as we could. That is true.
Created:
Please elaborate on what you mean by poor response.
In what way was his response poor?
Created:
Posted in:
Nice. Why don't you start a new thread titled - Why I believe in the Bible &Jesus.I will be more than happy to engage you in a civil conversation/discussion.I look forward to it.😊
Thank you. Maybe I will one of these days. I am glad that we can come to somewhat of a peaceful resolution, aside from what we believe.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Trump is blackmailing the new President Zelensky for dirt on Hunter Biden.
False, he was only pushing for information. He was not threatening him, therefore no blackmail involved.
Now we get into the controversial part of the conversation, where Giuliani supposedly had a part in the Hunter Biden Laptop information. Some say it might be misinformation, and that Giuliani was part of that misinformation, given that he was the one who took the laptop, and gave it over to the New York Post.
But there is a lot of evidence pressing on the opposite claim, that Giuliani was just suspected of these actions, simply because of his connection to Trump, and the bias against him. It is nothing more than a conspiracy. And there is actual evidence to prove otherwise.
"The FBI has declined to comment, refusing to either confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.
The gauzy details of the newspaper's account trace the hard drive to a computer repair shop in Delaware, where a laptop had been left for service last year but was never reclaimed by the customer. Exactly how the material moved to Giuliani, who with Trump has long pushed debunked conspiracy theories about the Bidens, has raised as many questions as the authenticity of the laptop data the president's lawyer provided to the newspaper."
The gauzy details of the newspaper's account trace the hard drive to a computer repair shop in Delaware, where a laptop had been left for service last year but was never reclaimed by the customer. Exactly how the material moved to Giuliani, who with Trump has long pushed debunked conspiracy theories about the Bidens, has raised as many questions as the authenticity of the laptop data the president's lawyer provided to the newspaper."
So we have an active Russian intelligence openly selling an alleged Hunter Biden laptop. That same Russian spy met with Giuliani on Dec 5th and the hard drive was turned over to the FBI on Dec 9th.
"KYIV, Ukraine — President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani met
Thursday in Ukraine with one of the key figures working to build a corruption case
against Hunter Biden, the Ukraine lawmaker said, after posting Facebook
photographs of himself with the former New York mayor.
Andriy Derkach said he pressed Giuliani on the need to set up a joint U.S.-Ukraine
investigation into corruption in Ukraine at the meeting in Kyiv. Derkach also vowed
to set up an anti-corruption group in the Ukraine parliament.
Giuliani did not make any immediate public comments on the meetings in Ukraine.
But in tweets hours later, he drew connections between future U.S. aid and
investigations by Ukraine into former vice president Joe Biden — issues that are
already at the center of the impeachment inquiry."
This shows that Giuliani was the one pushed to do this meeting. He wasn't helping Trump to push any type of blackmail against the Ukrainian Government. And this proves my point even further. Why would an active Russian intelligence have dirt on Biden, if Biden hadn't done something? Biden obviously did something that made Derkach want to meet with Giuliani and help him with their case.
Mac Issac claims Biden came in on April 12th and returned a few days later with a hard drive for copying but Issac claims he never actually saw the man's face.
So, did he, or did he not know it was Biden?
but Issac describes Giuliani as his "lifeguard" for some unknown reason.
"Mac Isaac also declined to state whether he approached Costello first with the hard drive or whether Giuliani’s team came to him.
When pressed on the question, he answered in vague near-soliloquy, stating, “When you’re afraid that you don’t know anything about the depth of the waters that you’re in, you kind of, you want to find a lifeguard.”"
When pressed on the question, he answered in vague near-soliloquy, stating, “When you’re afraid that you don’t know anything about the depth of the waters that you’re in, you kind of, you want to find a lifeguard.”"
He obviously used a metaphor to express the fact that he wasn't used to these types of investigations. So, he used the term "lifeguard" more or less as someone to help him out.
A Vegas prostitute secretly videotaped Biden telling the story of how his laptop got stolen.
Biden with a prostitute......not entirely illegal in Vegas, but still. Kind of paints you a picture.
The video is verified as predating any of Giuliani's claims. Biden says that he was snorting coke with his Vegas drug dealer in 2018 in a fancy hotel room when he was suddenly revived from nearly drowning in the pool (in the hotel room) and was sharply questioned by an unknown woman with a thick Russian accent who took his laptop with her when she left.
Yea....I think maybe our buddy Biden was a little messed up to recall anything.
Anything clearly in that case. Could have been used as an excuse. That seems more likely.
Hunter has never confirmed this video (understandable, he's naked and breaking a fair number of drug/prostitution laws)
Actually, I can defend Biden on this part. He was in Las Vegas at the time, where prostitution is not illegal, given the county population does not go over 700,000 people. And Cocaine is not an entirely illegal drug in the U.S.
But there were some illegal aspects of it though.
But then put into consideration, wouldn't it be a smart move to throw Giuliani under the bus, to cover up your illegal crimes?
I tend to find this story far more credible that Giuliani/Mac Issac's and credit that story with the method by which Russian Intel had an authentic Hunter Biden laptop to load with fake documents..
Yea....believe the dude that was high over the President's lawyer with credible information. That's smart.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I would expect a 53-year-old man to have better reading skills.
Created:
- Well, that explains it. You aren't old enough to understand that a politician calling for the end of fossil fuel consumption is not the same thing as President actually enforcing prohibitions on fossil fuel consumption. Big difference, kid.
I don't believe that my age has anything to do with my ability to argue against uninformed people like you.
And I didn't say he was enforcing it in the title if you had even read it. I said, "Biden's Idea".
Next time you should take a closer look at the wording.
Created:
Posted in:
Gendered behavior isn't an inherent product of biology or psychology, otherwise it wouldn't change based on your culture and upbringing.
Again, why was the term gender created?
Its sole purpose was to name the two sexes.
It doesn't matter what you think you are. You don't get to change the definition of a word that has been used for a different purpose, since the dawn of man, just because you want to be something you aren't.
Created:
Posted in:
Cause I have a strong belief in Gods existence, and would like to share why I believe it, and the facts to prove it with others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am a non-denominational Christian.
And I don't feel called by God to do this. I just feel like doing it.
Created:
So, if you don't have an argument present, I suggest you to not just throw insults around, ok buddy?
Created:
But gas prices are back down. Joe did that!Hey in another 6 months you can get your learners permit!
Yea he did! He finally is learning to fix his mistakes!
He actually remembered to do something!
Even though he still mixes up his sister and wife.
And actually, I can drive, because the state that live in allows for me to drive at 15!!
Created:
Ha, hilarious. And Americans at one time were incredulous about the Hitler youth. Kid, you need to get a life.
Well, I know nothing about your life, but I'm just guessing that an adult on a debate website probably doesn't have a lot of people other than strangers on the internet to talk to, has less than a life than me.
And I do have a very great life actually.
I have a job.
I help my church with missions' trips to Mexico and El Salvador.
I am physically active.
I have many real friends.
And I am a grade level above all of the other "kids" my age.
Oh, but I'm not going to tell you all about me, because mommy and daddy said not to talk to strangers.
Happy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Most People here on your thread do not accept your "evidence", myself included. Your "evidence" has been rejected and debunked.So what now?Will you simply keep going in circles where you repeat the same thing over and over, in the belief that you will get a different outcome?You have shown often that you don't even know your scriptures and this is only your maiden thread.
Well so much for:
There is no reason for me to respond on this thread at all from this point on.
But anyways, I wouldn't say debunked, just rejected by some, and that's ok. You don't have to believe me.
All my arguments were based in facts.
It's always so funny to me when your opponent stops arguing and starts insulting instead.
Created:
There’s a reason you make less than 20,000/year. It’s that you’re an idiot.
No, it's because I'm 15.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The previous president's signature campaign promise was that he would build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. He didn't build it and Mexico sure as hell didn't pay for it, yet I somehow missed your thread on that.
Well, when did this topic turn into talking about Trump? I don't think it ever did, so why would you just out of nowhere bring that up if I may ask.
And yes, Biden has also made these claims recently. I am not desperate; I am just well informed.
"Does Joe Biden think the American people are stupid?
When he said: “It’s simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production,” he’s not telling the truth. For one, his anti-U.S. energy policies cost the average American family $1,000 BEFORE Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In addition, Biden has spent YEARS saying he will “eliminate” oil, and that’s exactly what he set out to do when he entered office. We have the receipts:
- Biden, July 2019: “We would work [fossil fuels] out. We would make sure it's eliminated."
- Biden, September 2019: “I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuel.”
- Biden, September 2019: “I’ve argued against any more oil drilling or gas drilling on federal lands...we should, in fact, be looking at what exists now…I would not allow any more."
- Biden, February 2020: “a transition [from fossil fuels]…it’s going to have to happen.”
- Biden, October 2020: “I would transition from the oil industry, yes.”
- Biden, March 2020: “No more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends.”
- Biden, January 2021 while announcing new efforts to limit oil and gas production: “Climate change will be at the center of our national security and foreign policy.”
- Biden, March 9, 2022: “We are moving in the direction that we don’t need” fossil fuels to drive a car."
Created:
Posted in:
You would be better off requesting moderation to lock this thread, because it became circular pages ago and has drifted into argument that has shown you to be extremely lacking in biblical education and it has now become back and forth about who knows what and who doesn't about the bible. And the Brother beat you hands down on that score pages ago too.
You can believe what you want my friend.
But you really think the guy that only posts to yell at people and says that he's proven God to exist, simply because he thinks God is a serial killer, is the one to believe in this scenario?
I have already laid down my evidence, and it's up to you to believe it or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Remember what I told you YouFound_Lxam, there are NO FREE RIDES in this Religion Discussion Forum, where when someone posts to you about your topic of your thread to begin with, you are NOT to sheepishly run away from said topic and HIDE like Miss Tradesecret has to do because she is to embarrassed to address the topic in question, therefore she has to runaway from biblical axioms to save face, understood?
First off, I created this forum, so this isn't just something I joined out of nowhere. Thats what you did.
Secondly, you have not embarrassed me, you have only embarrassed yourself, and the that I will not be responding to that post, is because I already have many times, you just don't like the answer you have been given. I would gladly answer any new questions you might have, but I will continue to repeat myself.
And finally, if your only valid arguments are calling people Bible fools and saying that they sheepishly ran away from your posts, then you need to find a better argument my friend.
You have "ran away" from plenty of points I have brought up, but I haven't called you out on those, because I am not petty like you are being in this moment.
I will not be responding to anymore of your posts, that have to do with your previous arguments, because I will not repeat myself. Thank you Brother D. and I wish you good luck.
Created:
"President Biden has waged an unprecedented, government-wide assault on our nation’s ability to produce cheap, reliable energy," the memo from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) states, before listing Biden’s specific anti-fossil fuel actions next to the weekly average price of gas."
Well, he's definitely trying to keep his promise so......
Created:
-->
@oromagi
So, is your argument wrong, or you are saying that Biden yet again made a promise he cannot keep?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
"BIDEN HAS PLEDGED THAT FOSSIL FUELS AND FRACKING WOULD BE "ELIMINATED" IF HE IS PRESIDENT
In July 2019, Biden Said That There Would Be No Place For Fossil Fuels And Fracking In A Biden Administration, Saying "We Would Make Sure It's Eliminated." DANA BASH: "Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?" JOE BIDEN: "No, we would -- we would work it out. We would make sure it's eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either -- any fossil fuel.""
In July 2019, Biden Said That There Would Be No Place For Fossil Fuels And Fracking In A Biden Administration, Saying "We Would Make Sure It's Eliminated." DANA BASH: "Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?" JOE BIDEN: "No, we would -- we would work it out. We would make sure it's eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either -- any fossil fuel.""
His words not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Gender is a social concept that varies from culture to culture and often determines stuff like social roles, sexual dominance, and pronouns. Pronouns are gendered, not sexed.
Well, if you really want to play with definitions here, then yes, gender is technically a social construct.
But you could say that about so many other things as well. For example, money.
But just as Ramshutu clearly stated:
Well no - because gender as a concept is used to refer to your perceptions of your own sex; and has been used for the last 60 + years to refer to the social aspects relating to physical sex.
Yes, this Idea that gender is a concept used to your own liking of how you feel, has been a thing for the past 60 years or so.
But all the way up until about 60 years ago, people didn't do that, they used gender to identify the 2 biological sexes.
Gender and Sex are synonyms in a way. The only reason they are different words, is because people didn't want to call each other biological male, and biological female.
Why did people come up with the word male and female in the first place?
Because they were trying to use a different word to name the 2 sexes.
Created:
Posted in:
This is just going to turn into back-and-forth name calling.
This forum is supposed to be about proving the existence of God, and to have a rational discussion about it, without insulting.
I mean from what I know, y'all are probably adults, so please be mature about it.
Created:
In 2021, the U.S. energy was dependent on 61% fossil fuels.
In 2021, about 4,108 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or about 4.11 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States.1 About 61% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases. About 19% was from nuclear energy, and about 20% was from renewable energy sources.
If we were to cut off all fossil fuels as of right now, and only use renewable energy sources, as sources of energy, then we would lose 61% of our energy.
Only 20% of our power comes from renewable energy. But they still have there downsides.
Solar Energy:
Even though the woke leftists and radical environmentalists want to tell you that we would be better off just taking energy from the sun, it's not that easy to do.
Solar Energy would only be available through the day. So you would be losing about 8 hours of energy every day.
Not to mention that the PV cells in most solar panels today are made up of silicon, which is acquired by mining it.
Wind Energy:
Wind energy is a good idea on paper. Wind=Energy. There is a lot of wind, so there will be a lot of energy. But this resource has a similar problem to solar.
It wouldn't have the capability to be as actively producing as other energy sources. The wind doesn't always blow. So you would not be collecting any energy when those times arrive.
And if the environmentalist are so inclined to "save the environment" they should be saying no to wind energy, because it heavily affects bird and animal environments. Not in a good way though.
Hydropower:
Water energy is one of the more efficient natural energy sources that we have, but why do we have so few. Because Hydropower makes one of the biggest dents in environmental stability.
Y'all wanna "save the environment" huh?
Those are just some examples, but it goes to show that we can't survive off of renewable energy alone. And even if we could, it would very stupid to chose to cut all of our other energy sources, just because some radical environmentalists say our planet is going to die in a couple years if we don't...…like they have been saying for 80 years...…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus was not part of Judaism
Yea, Judaism religious practices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
A lot apparently.
But most of them are just Brother D. sending out repeating messages.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Elon Musk has censored more accounts on Twitter since he took over in October then the US Government has censored on Twitter throughout Twitter's entire history.
First off, that's completely false. Twitter has censored way more accounts before Elon took over.
Elon Musk literally said his goal was to bring back free speech to Twitter, because of all of the censorship.
Oh, for sure. Get mad at Elon for trying to stop someone who is tracking his personal stuff.
He has the right to do that, because he doesn't disagree with the person, he literally is tracking his stuff.
And yes, now Elon Musk is no longer the richest person in the world........he's the second richest, only losing by a couple billion dollars, which is a lot of money, but not for rich people like Elon.
Also, most of your data wasn't proving your "STATEMENT of FACT:" It, was only an attempt to show everyone that Elon is a failure, which backfired for you completely. He may not be the new Albert Einstein, but he's got more money than everyone on this platform combined does, and he is probably smarter too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The scientists disagree with that man. I trust the scientists consistently. When they claim transgenderism is valid
No, they don't....
I define a woman as anyone that is a ciswomen or transwomen.
Have you ever heard of a circular definition? You can't define woman, by saying woman. Here's a challenge:
Define woman without using the word woman.
But a lot of the transwomen I’ve seen on the internet act like girls. Dawn Marie, Samantha Lux. They also get me hard.
So therefore, acting like a girl makes you a girl?
Created:
add links please I would love to read those articles myself.
Created:
Posted in:
Morality depends on values.Values are located in our brains and are subject to our opinion.So people can have different moral systems based on what they value, be it life, health, joy or none of those.
"Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as religious commandments, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow independent of our religious beliefs."
There is one moral system that people can chose to follow, or not follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Says the man that says "Jesus wasn't a Jew"
I never said Jesus wasn't a Jew, I said he did not abide by Jewish Law, he abided by Gods law.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
You're not grasping the news; you're just directing this topic back to 2020. Look at the facts of right now.
Created:
Posted in:
Listen, we know that you are SCARED TO DEATH in trying to answer my Jesus inspired posts to you in my post #365, and by wetting your pants when even thinking about it. But, that comes with the territory of you being Bible stupid and ignorant of same.
Listen I have answered your questions, you just don't like the answers you were given.
Now how about you quiet down so everyone else can have turn to talk with real facts and evidence buddy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yea....Maybe just ask for a choo choo train or something.
Created:
Posted in:
You say that I am worse with the scriptures? Okay, then "PROVE IT"
You have already done that with your posts.
Created:
- Name that incriminating evidence. Matt Taibbi says you have none. I say you have none.
Twitter working with the FBI and Government, to cencor certain political opponents.
Created:
- No. That is not a coincidence. Right wing extremism is bad for business in a way that left wing extremism seldom is. The left is inherently more big tent, big free marketplace. Left wingers can talk about world peace and feeding the poor and all kinds of shit all day long and never change a single Right Winger's buying habits. A Right Winger talks about black people's brain size or Jewish cabals and suddenly big companies start losing real money. The Right WIng is all about making large groups of Americans feel unwelcome and that's why the Right Wing is generally less presentable (and therefore less profitable) in the context of corporate America.
This quote just shows how much bias you have on the topic.
And quite honestly, you still have not provided any evidence for any of your claims.
You haven't proved any of mine wrong.
You can't just say something is wrong and expect people to believe you. Do you think that's really going to work?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother D. you are a troll, who doesn't understand Christianity, and
is even worse with the scripture.
Maybe if you actually took time to go to church and study the Bible for what it truly is, then you would understand.
Created: