Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
This is my list of members whose posts are so often good that I have developed the habit of reading them whenever I see their name, regardless of the thread's topic. Their posts are usually intelligent and enjoyable to read.
In no particular order:
Speed race – he’s hella funny. And fair.
RationalMadman – he knows things. Almost always the first to know what’s going on.
EtrnlVw - Our most original thinker. Very polite and has intriguing ideas.
bmdrocks21 – intelligent posts.
Athias – probably our most intelligent poster. Concise, polite, and genius level easiness.
Dr.Franklin – great sense of humor, to the point openness. Never gets insulted.
Drafterman – intelligent posts. Very logical. Steady disposition.
Mhykiel – Clear headed intelligence.
SirAnonymous – probably the best sense of humor. Creative and original thinker.
Imabench – The best and most objective political instincts. Intelligent posts.
PGA2.0 – Best religious poster. Knowledgeable, friendly, and intelligent.
3RU7AL – interesting worldview, unflappable character.
Greyparrot – best political poster. Quick wit, and a wealth of political knowledge.
Outplayz - Very intelligent, but without arrogance. Easy to talk to.
GuitarSlinger – a principled poster. Intelligent and morally objective.
Janesix – Just a pleasant poster. Very honest about herself. Interesting ideas.
Christen – A poster without guile. Enhances the quality of any thread he enters.
Swagnarok – an all round intelligent poster. Enjoyable posts.
Honorable Mention:
PressF4Respect - Intelligent, very good counter-puncher, but inconsistent.
The Mods - As anything they say could be important to me, so I read them.
Who's on your list?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You told me nothing at all but thought you'd TRY and be clever.
My first post in this thread. Post #16
When Jesus says in John 7:38, "scripture", what is He referring to?
It cannot be what Stephen is "searching" as it would be more than 300 years before the bible would exist when Jesus said this.
In fact, when Jesus said this, the Torah had not even been divided into verses yet.
So Jesus was clearly not referring to the thing Stephen is searching.
The confusion stems from ignorance about how the bible came about, and what "scripture" is.
Scripture is every word that has come out of the mouth of God, but not every word out of the mouth of God is in the Bible.
Because he is ignorant he thinks the word Jesus used, "scripture", means "Bible", it doesn't, and cannot. The bible did not exist then, and would not exist for hundreds of years
You are lying when you say, "I told you nothing."
You are now simply posting to bury your own embarrassment,...
Here is what you said in post #2
It appears that the claim by Jesus appears to be false.
How is it false? Because it isn't in the bible? Because you stupidly think, due to ignorance, that scripture must mean bible.
The only one embarrassed here is you.
It was absolutely delightful to have you admit that everything religiously "scriptural" is not necessarily in the bible.
When I was the one who told you? Lol!! Funny. You didn't know homer, you thought Jesus was wrong.
It will be something I can use against you when - as you often do - deny anything introduced into an argument BY ME that is not in the bible, such as The Gospel of Thomas that clearly states that LAZARUS was alive and not dead when Jesus "raised" him.
The gospel of Thomas is not in the bible homer. Neither is it scripture. The difference between you and I is that I know the bible, unlike you, I'm not ignorant.
So, Jesus was not wrong, you were just ignorant. All this bluster, all the caps, bolding, underlining, all the vulgarity, all for nothing. All because you were so ignorant you thought "scripture" could only mean "bible".
*You didn't know that it was stupid to think Jesus was quoting a book that would not be in existence for hundreds of years.
*You did not know that the bible was not broken into verses till long after Jesus.
*You did not know there was scripture that was not the bible.
*You still don't know that Jesus is the creator of "scripture". What He says IS scripture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
No wonder. Well, we thoroughly enjoy it. Wish you'd do something like this for other subjects. You really are funny.
Created:
Posted in:
It's not that the world's going to end.
Tell the alarmists that. They're running around telling us that the world is about to end.
It's that things might not be the same for human society.
No cars, no meat, no jobs. I'd say so.
It might mean that eventually there are a few less of us about. Which is probably a good thing from the planet's point of view.
From the liberals POV. The planet has no POV.
Not that a planet actually gives a toss.
Thank you.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You assumed my stupidity, so it was definitely in your thoughts
Did I also assume your infantilism?
Not an instantaneous response then.
Lol. Not a French response either.
Whatever turns you on as they say.
You think my relating a historical event is somehow sexual to me?
Why you said what you did about perverts is starting to be understandable.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though it was you that suggested that Jesus was into a bit of scourging.
Yeah. We know what you thought.
And any psychologist will inform you of the subliminal implications of such an action.
Any stupid one would, sure.
Ergo, not as stupid as you might want to think.
Lol. The stupidity, like the infantilism, was not in my thoughts zed.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It's typical. To have any argument at all, he must reduce the situation to a simplistic and childish dichotomy. "we must "beat the shyte out of them or be pacifist" - no other options....why you keep insisting that we must "beat the shyte out of them or kill them out of hate" in order to neutralize a given situation (without disturbing the principle of love) is rather immature and strange.
As an insurance policy, he has also misdefined "love your enemies" as pacifism.
He's not here for dialogue etrn, he's venting.
Created:
One that is not in our current Bible.
So you do not know what scripture that Jesus is referencing. Well done Popoff. You got there in the end after all your denials and blatant lies.
Lol. I told you in my first post to you. But you were too busy doing your shuck and jive dance.
Jesus is referencing scripture that has been lost to history.
And that is all you needed to say in your first reply at your first post then wasn't it?
I did say so. You stupidly claimed I was "lying" and putting words "in the mouth of Jesus."
It was only my professional training as a troll whisperer that enabled me to force you into admitting you saw the answer.
You posted this because you thought it was an error on the bible's part. You thought it should be in the bible if it was not an error.
You now want to bury that bit of silliness behind, "I was only asking where it was!"
*You didn't know that it was stupid to think Jesus was quoting a book that would not be in existence for hundreds of years.
*You did not know that the bible was not broken into verses till long after Jesus.
*You did not know there was scripture that was not the bible.
*You still don't know that Jesus is the creator of "scripture". What He says IS scripture.
Every "contradiction" you've posted so far has turned out to be fakery. Your abandoned threads litter the board. All exactly alike. You post nonsense, claim there is no answer, spam the same nonsense in every post ignoring the rebuttals, and then run away when your denials become too silly to continue.
I told you I'd be here for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Its just another in a line of idiots trying to ride the coattails of Jesus to turn a buck.
They have no talent, do they wait till someone does something notable and then say something scandalous about them to get notoriety they can change into dollars.
They will fall into obscurity just like the others before them. Who remembers "Jesus Christ: Superstar!" now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Oh yes! I'm making a thread right now that I'll post today. I'll @ you when I do.
Its unusual for a sports guy to have this good a sense of humor. What's your story?
Created:
Posted in:
Less ice in the summer! Stop the presses!The ice extent has changed,” Perovich says. “There’s less, particularly in the summer,...
Now, communities are exposed to harsh waves and storms, and some areas are crumbling into the ocean.
which throws the jet stream off its normal path and leads to extreme weather events. These altered patterns lead to heat waves, droughts, and extreme wildfires, among other impacts.
Dont be alarmed,....
Lol. No, chicken little isn't trying to alarm you. World ending catastrophe is meant to soothe you.
The world is ending in 12 years say the climate alarmists. But don't be alarmed.
You'll die with a beautiful tan.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Do you see those words in quotes Popoff? Those are quotes from Jesus himself. He is referencing some scripture. I want you to tell me WHAT FKN "scripture" is Jesus referencing .
One that is not in our current Bible.
...that is my original question as posed at post one of this thread.
And I've told you over and over, not all scripture is in the Bible.
This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time.
It cannot be a verse.
MORE FKN DENIAL AND LIES!!!! What the FK is this if it NOT a verse?
Stop acting insane. The bible was not divided into verses till hundreds of years after Jesus lived. And, since Jesus is not referencing the bible, this scripture was never broken into verses.
Its just logic homer. Calm down and think. If you don't read the replies, you will remain ignorant.
if you don't know then simply say so instead of making up things and telling lie after lie and pretending you haven't even seen my question.
What lie have I told? What did I make up?
You stupidly thought what Jesus said had to be a mistake if it wasn't in the bible. You thought this because in your ignorance, you conflated "scripture" with "bible".
But your lack of knowledge has embarrassed you again. You saw that it wasn't in the bible, and went ballistic, your cluelessness fueling your error.
Jesus is referencing scripture that has been lost to history. My previous post above gives other examples of this.
Even the bible says that not everything Jesus said and did was recorded. So calm down. There is no conspiracy to hide anything. The stuff you "find" isn't new, and they aren't contradictions.
You are just woefully ignorant on bible culture and context. And joined with that ignorance, your anti-theist hate makes you a perfect target for lolz.
I'm beginning to suspect you may be compulsive too. That would be wonderful.
Created:
For those of you who would like to see it, wiki has a list of all the works mentioned in the OT and NT that have been lost to history. It is an interesting read.
The non-canonical books referenced in the Bible includes pseudepigrapha, writings from Hellenistic and other non-Biblical cultures, and lost works of known or unknown status. By the "Bible" is meant those books recognised by most Christians and Jews as being part of Old Testament (or Tanakh) as well as those recognised by Christians alone as being part of the Biblical apocrypha or of the Deuterocanon.
It may also include books of the Anagignoskomena (Deuterocanonical books § Eastern Orthodoxy) that are accepted only by Eastern Orthodox Christians. For the purposes of this article, "referenced" can mean direct quotations, paraphrases, or allusions, which in some cases are known only because they have been identified as such by ancient writers, or the citation of a work or author.
For Stephen - non-canonical books mean books not canonized (or compiled) in the standard King James bible.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And your stupidity?I'll apologise for my infantilism now.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not any part of the House of God no.
So your kidneys and your virginity are off limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
In the "see something/say something" culture of today, someone would have flagged you as a potential school shooter.
Standing next to me as a saviorA loaded gun, click click fire.
Russian roulette?
Chilling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
We know that life comes only from prior life. Every bit of scientific evidence to date confirms this.
Not true, but almost: we've never observed life arising spontaneously. That doesn't mean it can't happen.
I did not say it cannot happen. I only know it has NEVER happened, and there is no coherent hypothesis for it happening.
As it is, a theory that someone alive came from a parallel universe and seeded Earth with life is as viable as abiogenesis, and has exactly the same amount of evidence for it.
In fact, it must have happened, unless you're again claiming life perhaps happened at the exact moment of the big bang, You didn't answer that by the way, I noticed.
I can only tell you what science says. No one knows. It is currently unresolved.
...here's the evidence (all of which you will ignore)
I will ignore no viable evidence, but I will not accept something as evidence that is assumed and really says nothing about abiogenesis.
If it only comes from other life, where did that life come from?
This is what I mean by you trying to jump ship. I'm not making guesses. I'm stating to you the results of 2,000 years of scientific observation and experimentation. Life comes only from life. You act as if I'm stating my personal belief.
No one's saying it is the only option.
Why is it an option at all? It has no evidence! None. Are ghosts also an option? Dragons? Aliens?
Options should at least have some scientific reality. Some evidence that they are plausible. Or else, everything is an option.
But if there once wasn't life, and now there is, by definition, life came from non life, abiogenetically.
This is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow.
This is a simple conclusion and makes no claim about the process that resulted in it.
It is a scientifically unjustified assumption.
They definitely won.
That is a false analogy. A real analogy would be seeing a score and assuming the team played. The score is evidence someone won, not evidence your team did.
It arose from something that was not life.
That is the unwarranted assumption. No one yet knows how it arose. It is unresolved. You want to force it to be abiogenesis. Why? Unresolved means there is currently no answer.
There aren't any other answers available.
Science waits when there is no answer. It doesn't shoehorn in some no-evidence silliness just because.
You are demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of the size of the universe, the speed of light, etc. It's sad.
Not so. If abiogenesis is possible, (and your theory says it is probable), given the amount of time involved, the universe should be infested with life.
We do not need to physically explore other worlds to discover life. Is our SETI program one with spaceships? We listen for radio waves which travel at the speed of light. We hear nothing. We find no floating debris. No anomalous radiation.
This is not proof there isn't life, but so far, the idea that life would spontaneously occur under the right conditions is shaky.
A few scientists have now openly said that our current understanding must be wrong. SETI has shut down.
It is actually you who has no clue as to the vastness of the universe. If only one in every million planets can host life, that would remain quadrillions of planets that should have life. And this is a conservative estimate.
We have already found more than 4,000 such planets. No life yet. You guys must face the implications of your theory.
If life only comes from life, was life as we know it extant at the very moment of the big bang? If so, where did that life come from?
No one currently knows, but there is as much reason to claim abiogenesis as there is to claim a mirror universe.
And because no one knows is not reason to insert a zero-evidence, anti-science travesty into the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
talk to metell me what I need to be.
Deep. How old were you exactly?
Created:
-->@3RU7AL
This seems like quite a leap in logic. Now you're a church?
A temple is where God lives. I could give you the verses, but I doubt that would help. I tell you how the bible answers your question, I don't really care if you believe it or not.
You can be a church, but you must be a PACIFIST church.
Lucky for me, it is Jesus who decides that, not you. Jesus fashioned a scourge and whipped people, overturning stalls and dumping money. That was not pacifist.
According to your own "moral principle" of "love".
You do not understand the Christian principle and think it means pacifism. You are incorrect. Your understanding is infantile.
This is actually pretty specific.
Actually it is not. Jesus was not talking about taxes at all.
In other words, OPEN TO VERY BROAD PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.
This is true in every open and Democratic society. So what? You want to legislate peoples thoughts? Everything is open to broad personal interpretation. So what?
...a man cannot know the mind of god.
True, unless God reveals what's on His mind. If the author wants to reveal his original intent, he can do so.
-->@deb
keep going from God to Jesus then back to God.
Jesus is God.
If we had like A AWESOME BIBLICAL SCHOLAR translator type dude, we can simply ask what does this Scripture mean?
Or you could simply read it with your brain on, like millions of others have done with no problem.
Maybe would should all chip in some cash and buy one of them BIBLICAL SCHOLAR.
He would still have to be a member of Dart, and you know how crazy you get about groups.
What do ya reckon thang ?
I rekon you're far too unstable to be trying to buy people. Not to mention broke.
You could save some money by just reading it with your brain on.
I have no evidence of this, but yours is working right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
We aren't guessing here. At least I'm not. Science advances in stages. For example, we first find out that matter is made up of atoms, and then later find out that atoms are made up of even smaller particles.Seems like nothing makes a Christian more uncomfortable than answering honestly "I don't know."
You want to jump before we have settled one stage of scientific exploration. Why?
Here is what we know. We know that life comes only from prior life. Every bit of scientific evidence to date confirms this.
Now, we also know that the universe was at one time inhospitable to life as we know it. But life is here now.
These two things should not cause the man of science to ditch clear science that is telling us life comes only from life.
The two things are currently unresolved, but both can be true, and in fact, it is science saying both are true.
Science has many thing like this, things that seem to contradict if both are true. Is light a wave or a particle?
But no real scientist rejects light being a particle because another bit of evidence says light is a wave. It is not fully resolved, but science confirms both positions.
Now, science confirms that life comes only from life. There is no evidence to the contrary. None. Science doesn't even have a clue of a hypothesis for any mechanism for spontaneous creation of life.
If the answer is no, life did not begin to exist at precisely the moment the big bang occurred, but life exists now, you understand that this is EXACTLY EVIDENCE FOR ABIOGENESIS, right?
Not at all. This is like a Christian saying, any God is evidence for the Christian God. If there was no life, and there is life now, why is spontaneous life the only option?
Why is the universe not teeming with life? Why have we NEVER observed it on Earth? The dilemma is unresolved, it is NOT evidence for abiogenesis.
No, that is NOT abiogenesis. You are saying any unexplained occurrence of life MUST be abiogenesis. A phenomena never seen, never produced, never repeated, ever. Why?It did not exist then. It exists now. That's literally abiogenesis: no life at point A, life at point B.
This is exactly like the illiterate who believes ghosts when he sees an object move unaided because it "can't be anything else". He just doesn't know what else it could be, but it is NOT evidence for ghosts. It's unexplained.
It is unexplained, not abiogenesis. Non-the-less, all the evidence so far is on the side of life from life.
This is poor and sloppy thinking. And I can show how, but I want to resolve the first question first.
Right now, science has no evidence of the spontaneous creation of life at any time or any place in the universe.
Calling the unexplained "abiogenesis", is conjecture and assumption based on no scientific evidence, and is akin to calling the unexplained ghosts or magic.
What science needs to do now, is to try to resolve the things we know that seem to contradict instead of unjustifiably assuming abiogenesis for no scientific reason at all.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain exactly where Jesus says, "love thine enemy, I mean, unless they're trying to hurt you in some way, then beat the Schmidt out of them..."
I haven't a clue what you're babbling about here, but "Love thine enemy" does not mean "be a pacifist". Jesus Himself wasn't a pacifist.
What is your BIBLICAL exception to "love thine enemy"?
There are never exceptions to obedience to God.
Jesus didn't make a "statement" for every little thing. Some things can be inferred.
Jesus said we become the temple of God when we are born again, because the Holy Spirit comes to live within us. Thus we are to respect and protect God's temple and not allow anyone to defile it.
Jesus flogged the money changers in the temple and justified it by saying, "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up."
Jhn 2:16 - And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
Jhn 2:17 - And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
We become His father's house at salvation, and we are to treat it with the same zeal.
Where does Jesus say "it's ok to kill people in self-defense"?
I don't know. Where did Jesus say it's OK to pay taxes? The bible is for mature adults, it is not paint-by-the-numbers juvenile guide book.
That is why the bible has stories that allow the Christian to have a deeper understanding of the morality of God than just a list of do's and don'ts
We learn this morality by observing the relationship between God and his people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Take a hike Ethang.
No, goober.
We dont need your kind around here
No one cares what you and your imaginary friends need.
Stop being a climate alarmists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Of course. The great pleasant poster will be away, and the half-witted trolls will be on overtime.
Enjoy your holidays.
Created:
Love thine enemy doesn't mean pacifism.
Created:
Posted in:
Abiogenesis is speculation about an unknown process.
Thank you.
Evolution does not have specific connotations.
You brought up evolution, I didn't. It has nothing to do with my argument.
scientific evidence is only human understanding as far as it goes and not always human certainty.
All I asked for evidence, not certainty. For abiogenesis, there was no evidence offered. As you have honestly admitted, Abiogenesis is speculation about an unknown process.
Though for the life of me, I still cannot understand why people who say they know science cling to an idea with no scientific evidence and actually contradicts all scientific knowledge on the subject to date.
Usually my opponents in debates about abiogenesis run away. But often, when one of them fancies himself a man of science, he gets huffy and stomps off when I show his science is deficient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
It has never happened anywhere other than your imagination.i have only ever talked about that abiogenesis happened...
...since I see no rebuttal to the evidence I gave
You gave no evidence. "Life not here, life here, therefore abiogenesis" is nonsense, not evidence.
I will accept your concession on this and other matters.
Lol. Go ahead. You imagine evidence for abiogenesis, no reason not to imagine a concession. Lord knows you won't get one through logical argumentation.
When you want to stop making veiled insults......from you, not fictitious professors
Lol. Hypocrite.
I will be here.
And still without evidence no doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Posts like this is why I'm on a site like this.
Just great.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
This is the most entertaining post I've read in a long time. Hilarious. I lol'ed.
You are now on my must read list.
Created:
I always wonder why these circle-jerks by atheists end so quickly. You would think they would be able to, and want to, riff at God for much longer.
I guess, once they shoot their load, they lose interest.
I feel for their poor girlfriends.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So? How does that relate to your error that the die with "him" refers to Lazerus?Thomas, for reasons known only to himself, decides it would be a good idea to go back to Bethany with Jesus and where Lazarus supposedly lays dead in a tomb and had been so for four days.
YOU still do not explain what the words "Let us also go, that we may die with him. " spoken by Thomas actual mean..
I did. You dodged. Post #6
when Thomas said let us go and die with him, he was talking about dying with Jesus in case the Jews of Judea succeeded in killing Him.
Dodge it again. The Gentle Readers see it though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You advice turned out not to be so good.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You forgot to add the...
Good game.
Good game.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
didn't you bother to check before asking me what my question actually was and still is.
You posted your question Jethro.
Correct!!!! you are finally catching up!!! GOOD BOY!!!!! Peter Popoff. I did post a question didn't I?
Yes you did. Which is why I didn't bother to check before asking you what your question actually was and still is.
I keep answering you, but you keep trying to change your question.
You even now keep on insisting that you have answered the question/s but that is just a lie AGAIN .
OK slick, but your own posts call you a liar.
Would you like it again just for good measure?
You will post it again even if I answer.
Here you are again.
OK.
Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?
No.
This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time.
It cannot be a verse. Scripture had not been divided into verses by then.
Why can I not find it ?
Because you are stupidly looking for it in the bible.
...you have certainly not answered.
Not only have I answered, I've scolded you for stupidly thinking it had to be in the bible, and for stupidly thinking the word "scripture" meant bible in 33 ad.
Now, do your shuck and jive dance again. Post the same stupidity again, and the results will be the same. Your nonsense will not suddenly become sensible by you spamming it.
...unless I have missed it, I can categorically say it won't be found in either of the books mentioned questions 1 or 2.
You missed it. I told you in my first post to you that it was not in the bible. You're still ranting that it isn't. Why's should it be? You can't answer.
You don't have to answer question two (2) or Three(3) because that was the first place I looked and I can tell you that ;
Then why did you post the questions at all? So you admit now that I answered your questions?
So Popoff ,that only leaves my initial question, doesn't it. [1]What scripture says this?
I answered you in post #42
You asked and posted, "What scripture in the Bible says this?" And you have been told, no scripture in the bible says this.
That is the answer homer. The one you are pretending not to see.
Now, do your silly dance again, and repost your inane question, and the answer will not change.
I told you, the bible doesn't contain all the scripture there is.
Now that I show you that it isn't in the bible, and should not be in the bible, you want to morph to, "where exactly is it?"
Can we settle your first question before you morph to another one?
Or will you do your shuck and jive dance again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Untrue. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. The "a" means without, the "bio" means "life", and "genesis" means "beginning".Abiogenesis loosely refers to or assumes the possibility of a process from which life was able to evolve.
Abiogenesis means the spontaneous beginning of life in the absence of prior life. It is a fantasy that has zero scientific evidence for it.
What does it insinuate specifically?Abiogenesis does not specifically insinuate that a blob of inert matter suddenly burst into life.
Of course, the alternative to an abiogenic process is a magical process, whereby a blob of inert matter was suddenly made to burst into life.
Abject nonsense. We see the alternative every day. The alternative has been confirmed by scientific experimentation for decades. Life comes from prior life.
Using the word "magic" only serves to poison the well as you have no real defense of abiogenesis and cannot admit that the alternative is actually scientifically sound.
Every bit of scientific evidence points to the fact that matter cannot be destroyed.
Every bit of scientific evidence points to the fact that the speed of light is constant.
Every bit of scientific evidence points to the fact that time proceeds in one direction only.
Every bit of scientific evidence points to the fact that life occurs only in the presence of prior life.
A real man of science will follow science no matter where it leads. Give me evidence for abiogenesis or it gets dismissed as wishful thinking.
Calling things you don't understand "magic" is for superstitious illiterates.
What is the evidence for abiogenesis??
Created:
-->
@Imabench
This was a very clear headed post. Your political analysis was spot on.
Your post sets out the reasons why I think the GOP is not being honest in saying they want to wrap it up quickly. Can they resist a slow run into the end zone and spiking the ball?
I have 3 questions for your analysis:
1. Do you think the dems who voted against impeachment will be punished by the dem party?
2. Which dem do you personally like, and who is the dem you believe is most likely to beat Trump if they got the nomination?
3. Will the impeachment help or hinder a.Trumps chances of a 2020 win?
b. The dems chances of keeping the house?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Do you have an actual rebuttal?
Not for something so science illiterate. It would be a waste of time.
Are you saying that polygons with all the sides are equal and all the inside angles are equal don't exist or that you've never heard of such things referred to as "regular shapes?"
Neither. I'm saying your classification of them as "regular" is not a trait in the shape, it is in your mind, and that your "regular" shapes are not order.
It is how those arrangements of atoms change over time that make them living. Life is about change.
That is not what you first said. Now you are moving the goalposts from "arrangement" to "change over time".
But this tweak doesn't save your argument. What has been the atomic "change" in the brain of a man 2 minutes dead?
What did they answer?
They said "No". A few said that atoms cannot be seen.
I'm saying that insults do not help improve the conversation and asking that you stop.
I am not insulting you, but you are feeling insulted. The only thing I can tell you is that I do not intend to insult you. But if you are feeling insulted perhaps you should leave. I refuse to be responsible for your feelings.
Thus we establish evidence that life, at one point, was not on Earth.
And yet there is life today, meaning life had to have arisen at some point and the only thing available for it to arise from is non-living material.
This is where our problem is! You have corrupted the definition of "abiogenesis".
Even ludo does it when he says....
The bible seems to support abiogenesis, which simply means that life arose from non-life. Isn't that how Adam is created in the genesis account?
No, it isn't.
The claim that abiogenesis is referring to the matter that constitutes living bodies is disingenuous.
Everyone knows and accepts that living bodies are composed of natural non-living material, abiogenesis says that non-living material came to life spontaneously in the absence of other life.
Materialists want to skew the definition of abiogenesis to, "life from non-living material.
We have all the material, why can't science create life?
...meaning life had to have arisen at some point and the only thing available for it to arise from is non-living material.
But the question is NOT what material did life arise from, but how did it arise? We still have all the materials present, we have even conducted experiments duplicating early Earth conditions. Yet no life developed.
The OP's point is not that there was no material present for life, but that there was no life.
This is the conundrum materialists face when they insist that life and the organic material it inhabits are equivalent.
They cannot explain things like why no instance of organic material has ever been known to become alive, or what the material difference is between a living body and one recently dead.
So to ward off the materialists attempt to water down the definition of abiogenesis, the axiom that "life cannot come from non-life", is better rendered as, "life cannot come from the non-living." Or even better, "life cannot arise in the absence of prior life."
So Draftsman, we see you do assume. There was once no life on Earth, now there is life, you conclude abiogenesis out of pure assumption.
Abiogenesis has NEVER been observed, it cannot be explained, science has no working hypothesis for its mechanism. It has failed to be duplicated or reproduced in any scientific experiment ever conducted.
Every instance of life since man could think has been from prior life. Every scientific experiment to date has confirmed life only from prior life
The fact that life is here now is not evidence for abiogenesis. It is not evidence that life began spontaneously.
There is no reason or evidence to believe that life started on Earth in a way different than what we have always observed.
You assume abiogenesis simply because you do not like the science supported alternative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
No.Take a hike and a leap E.T.
Repeating pointless silliness is.... well, silly.
We dont need you kind around here.
We who Jethro? Are you imagining yourself the leader of a group?
Do they cheer at your posts? All agree with the tripe you post? All think you're the next B. Fuller? Love you?
If you have no friends, make some eh?
Tell us more of what you and your adoring friends don't need.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
You will find that people will think your best poems are the ones that mean the most to you. Angst and all.
Side note: Are you one of those authors that hate having to tell readers what your poems mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Lol! Google mining masquerading as an education.Quarks and gluons.
They have and continuously do so.
No, I meant the world outside of your head.
Which specific one would you like me to post evidence about?
Abiogenesis.
I just want to be clear, you are claiming that "Regular shapes" isn't a thing in geometry?
No more than "warm colors" are a thing in optometry.
Of course, the fact that elementary particles come in specific kinds that are all alike doesn't refute this notion.
It refutes the notion that it is the arrangement of those elementary particles that cause life. Right after death, the arrangement remains the same, but the body is dead. Its called logic.
This is the general understood meaning of the word "see" and it is that meaning of the word I am using when I say I can "see atoms."
I did a quick test asking science professors at my daughters uni if they could see atoms, not one of them answered "yes". But as I said, being logical is not compulsory.
(and that you know to be false).
I never say things I know to be false.
I would also appreciate it if you left out any disparaging remarks about my education or knowledge.
If you show a lack of knowledge, or are poorly educated on a subject on which you're pontificating, you'd like me to pretend you're knowledgeable?
If the summation of your response to me can be accurately reduced to: "lol, ur an idoit" then we can just end the conversation now.
I dont think you're an idiot at all. You have just greatly over-estimated your intelligence. Its more to do with ego than with IQ.
And you have always been, and will always be, free to end a convo with me at any time you please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Lol! Google mining masquerading as an education.Quarks and gluons.
They have and continuously do so.
No, I meant the world outside of your head.
Which specific one would you like me to post evidence about?
Abiogenesis.
I just want to be clear, you are claiming that "Regular shapes" isn't a thing in geometry?
No more than "warm colors" are a thing in optometry.
Of course, the fact that elementary particles come in specific kinds that are all alike doesn't refute this notion.
It refutes the notion that it is the arrangement of those elementary particles that cause life. Right after death, the arrangement remains the same, but the body is dead. Its called logic.
This is the general understood meaning of the word "see" and it is that meaning of the word I am using when I say I can "see atoms."
I did a quick test asking science professors at my daughters uni if they could see atoms, not one of them answered "yes". But as I said, being logical is not compulsory.
(and that you know to be false).
I never say things I know to be false.
I would also appreciate it if you left out any disparaging remarks about my education or knowledge.
If you show a lack of knowledge, or are poorly educated on a subject on which you're pontificating, you'd like me to pretend you're knowledgeable?
If the summation of your response to me can be accurately reduced to: "lol, ur an idoit" then we can just end the conversation now.
I dont think you're an idiot at all. You have just greatly over-estimated your intelligence. Its more to do with ego than with IQ.
And you have always been, and will always be, free to end a convo with me at any time you please.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
With the exception of Mexico and Brazil, every country in South America is less ethnically diverse than Israel.
If an ethnostate refers to culture, most countries in northern Europe are more of an ethnostate than Israel.
Thin. Very thin.
Created:
Posted in:
You made the lame thread Hosea.All occupied space changes Homer. This too shall pass. Old news Ethang.
Take a hike from this thread...
No. And bolding will not give you more authority homer.
Telling us the climate changes is like telling us the sun shines every day on Earth.
You made the dumb thread shemp.
So contrary to your telling me I cant tell you what to do, Ive told you several times now.
Tell me again, let's see if I'll do it. Lol
Take a hike...
No.
Maybe if you post it in all caps, bolded and underlined, it'll work. Hmm?
Or post some of your loony gibberish, that always closes the thread down.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You posted your question Jethro.No it wasn't and why didn't you bother to check before asking me what my question actually was and still is.
I had a warning about referring to you as stupid.
Do you know why?
You asked and posted, "What scripture in the Bible says this?" And you have been told, no scripture in the bible says this.
That is the answer homer. The one you are pretending not to see.
I keep answering you, but you keep trying to change your question.
Your original problem was that it wasn't in the bible. For some reason, you believe it should be in the bible, and think it's some sort of contradiction that it isn't.
Now that I show you that it isn't in the bible, and should not be in the bible, you want to morph to, "where exactly is it?"
Can we settle your first question before you morph to another one?
Or will you do your shuck and jive dance again?
(You did your shuck and jive dance again.)
When you're through dancing, post another fake contradiction and I'll dismember your argument again.
And then you can pretend again that your point is anything other than nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LordLuke
Maybe the other definition is how perverts define pervert.A pervert how I define it...
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Cambridge Dictionary
Ethnicity
A particular RACE of people, or the fact of being from a RACE of people.
American Dictionary
Ethnicity
A large group of people who have the same national, RACIAL, or cultural origins, or the state of belonging to such a group.
Nice try bud.
Except for maybe South Africa,...
How did I know you'd like South Africa?
Are you saying that religion isn't part of their cultural tradition?
No. I'm saying that Israel is not an ethno state because ethics relates to race.
I don't know what more I need to say.
Every muslim country is a self-admitted enemy of Israel. Your argument here is just a variation of the loony antisemitic idea that America is controlled by Jews.
Israel did not make America go to war, and it wasn't Israel's war. America did what it wanted. In fact, Israel was attacked during the Gulf war and did not respond.
They are a bad ally and don't deserve billions of dollars.
This belief can be held for several reasons. Some of those reasons are perfectly valid to hold, and some of those reason are antisemitic.
So the problem is not in believing that Israel is a bad ally and doesn't deserve billions of dollars, but in the reasons why one believes this.
...for some reason [Ethan] thinks that I am targeting Israel...
The reasons are your comments. Dredging up incidents from decades ago, calling Israel an ethno state, openly claiming only Europe and South Africa are "worthy" allies, insinuating that Israel controls America enough to "lead" it into war with Israel's "enemies"
Your reasons for your position is indistinguishable from that of an anti-semite targeting Israel only on emotional hate.
That is my impression, I may not be correct.
Created:
I know you don't know. You're ignorant, remember?
So why ask me to answer a question that I have asked. that I do not know
I didn't ask you a question you asked. You should have asked yourself what Jesus meant by "scriptures" before you started displaying your ignorance.
The WHOLE REASON for this thread is - BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW -..
Ignorance seems to be the actual reason behind all your threads, but your personal reason is always anti-theistic hate.
Now answer the question...
I've answered it twice now.
No you haven't stop lying.
Third time now. You asked, "What scripture in the Bible says this?" And you have been told, no scripture in the bible says this.
You stupidly think it must be in the bible. Why? You think Jesus is mistaken if it isn't in the bible. Why? Because your ignorance requires you to manufacture a dilemma.
That verse cannot be found anywhere. And you cannot find it either.
So now your problem is that I cannot find it? Wasn't your question where in the bible could the verse be found?
That question has been answered. Are you now ready to move the goalposts again?
I told you, the bible doesn't contain all the scripture there is.
So which scripture was Jesus referring to.. You haven't answered that question.
Sure I have. It is one of the many pieces of scripture not in the bible, as the bible itself alludes to.
I have asked you FOUR times now and have asked ""What scripture says this?" but you keep ignoring it and saying you have answered. Stop lying
Stop being stupid. I keep answering you, but you keep trying to change your question.
Your problem was that it wasn't in the bible. For some reason, you believe it should be in the bible, and think its some sort of contradiction that it isn't.
Now that I show you that it isn't in the bible, and should not be, you want to morph to, "where exactly is it?"
Can we settle your first question before you morph to another one?
Or will you do your shuck and jive dance again?
Maybe you should ask Mike if he can make font color an option. Bolding, caps, and underlining isn't working for you. Wouldn't your lying spam be spectacular in say, red or orange?
it wouldn't be a bad idea.
Lol. The bolding, the underlining, the caps are OK, but the coloring would be a bad idea?
Guess you're stuck with the three loon tools then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I was going to say that if you had anything of value to post, you would have posted it, until I realized you probably haven't a clue of what is of value.
Every July record has been broken since time began. This current one will one day be broken also. The same pattern will occur in the other direction, with cold July records being successively broken from time to time.
Its climate homer. It changes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
What is the evidence that there once wasn't life?
The fact that the universe was once so hot and dense that there weren't any planets, stars, or even atoms.
If there were no atoms, what was "hot" and "dense"? Do you know that "heat" is a property of matter? And you just admitted that there once wasn't a universe. Thanks.
Coming to a conclusion when there is no evidence is called an assumption.
Right, but I have come to a conclusion based on evidence. Ergo it is not an assumption.
Well, rational people usually require that evidence to be valid for the conclusion not to be considered assumption.
Thank you, but unnecessary. There is evidence.
You should alert the scientific community post haste.
They're aware of it. It's where I got it from.
OK. Perhaps one day they will share it with the rest of the world.
And there is evidence. That would be the main crux of my rebuttal to the OP.
It'll be exciting and novel when you finally post it.
No one has bothered to ask for it.
Lol. I wonder why?
I'm not interested enough to teach you basic physics. Be well in your lack of knowledge.
I wasn't talking physics, I was talking geometry.
That your ignorance covers multiple fields is not something to brag about.
That is not correct.
That is OK. A sound education in physics is no longer common these days. I'm sure your strengths are in other fields.
If you had a sound education in physics you would know that there are many distinct elementary particles, all different from each other.
But each type exactly like the others of that type. You should follow that instinct to not talk physics.
It's not blind, I witness it all the time.
I daresay you have powerful eyes if you see atoms all the time. But you're halfway there, at least you admit to it being faith.
I can only wonder what you think you're seeing when you see things, if not atoms.
"Seeing" is another of those things that happen only in the brain. But it is photons, not atoms that excite the optic nerve.
I have awareness of evidence for abiogenesis.
By revelation? Because you sure did not observe any evidence for abiogenesis.
I have.
As a theist, I hesitate to trash a claim of revelation, I only think it highly unusual that your deity has "revealed" evidence for abiogenesis to you. But to each his own.
I'm just letting you know that those statements can, contrary to your claim, be dismissed.
But facts cannot. And look, they still stand.
Ah, but I have, in fact dismissed then. So if facts cannot be dismissed, and I've dismissed then, then they aren't facts.
Or your belief that you have dismissed them is a delusion. Either or.
You were incorrect when you called them facts...
Luckily for me, your words don't create reality.
Do you imagine that yours do?
No. That is how I know your "dismissal" did nothing to the facts.
...and you were incorrect when you said that they cannot be dismissed
Yet there they stand, in spite of your feelings. Perhaps you are confusing "ignore" with "dismiss".
You can ignore a fact, but dismissing one does nothing.
Regardless of what effect dismissing has, you said it cannot be done, yet it has been done.
Lol. Should not a "dismissal" have the effect of dismissing? So even if your dismissal doesn't have the effect of dismissing, it still has been done?
It must be nice to believe your "dismissal" can cause facts to cease to exist. You must be a top notch debater.
Your materialist faith is impressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Some people say America is already there.get fat and ride around in motorized lounge chairs like in WALLIE
Created: