SergeantLynch wrote:
Typically evolved somewhat lazy realisation that survival demands effort.
All animals use food to make energy and then they spend this energy to move, find food, keep warm, and stay alive.
It's all so unfair.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Typically evolved somewhat lazy realisation that survival demands effort.
All animals use food to make energy and then they spend this energy to move, find food, keep warm, and stay alive.
It's all so unfair.
linate wrote:
"I can't believe people think having to work for basic needs is synonymous with freedom.
I'm pretty sure nobody thinks "freedom" is synonymous with "having to work", consequently, I don't think it's necessary to have a "belief" about it.
It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."
OK, and when rich people work, who are they serving?
"You Gotta Serve Somebody" - Bob Dylan
SirAnonymous wrote:
Who ever said that having to work is synonymous with freedom? I've never heard anyone say that.
I thought having to work for a living was supposed to be "slavery", when did it become "freedom"?
fauxlaw wrote:
They are what? Convicted? By whom? Your personal jumping jack court?
You haven't even mentioned that in the blue cities, the trees are all gross.
You're slipping up.
fauxlaw wrote:
People around the world soft-peddled the Marx Commuinist Manifesto in 1848, and Hitler in 1938, and the PRC in 1949, when I was born. In those 101 years, Those blinde3d morons lived to regret their soft-shoe dance. Just like yours.
Yes, and the whole time their minions kept telling the people "Why can't you just ignore Marx", and "Why can't you just ignore Hitler".
Dance, dance, dance on.
Y'all've been warned. I've been warning since 1966. Call me crazy; y'all have that right. Doesn't make it right. We'll see, won't we?
The DSA was founded in 1982, and Pumpkinhead has been warning people about it since 1966.
That's what I call visionary hatemongering LOL.
Double_R wrote:
The DSA is living rent free in your head. Why can’t you just ignore them?
LOL, and he is completely obsessed with something that just doesn't matter. The DSA isn't even a political party; they are nothing but an activist organization with an insignificant membership.
The DSA has a little over 100,000 members; there are over 30 thousand people in the US who believe the earth is flat for every each and every DSA member, the US Star Trek Fan Club has more members than the DSA. DSA membership represents less than three one hundreds of a percent of Americans, they don't matter, they have no impact on American politics, and Fauxlaw's obsession is a hopelessly uninformed attempt to characterize Democrats by equating them with this extremely fringe group.
The DSA is dwarfed by Fauxlaw's white supremacist brotherhood, and that is a group that represents a serious threat to this country. This makes me think Fauxlaw is just using the DSA to distract from the grave danger his white supremacist movement represents to our country.
There is an agenda that explains the reason Fauxlaw wants us to ignore Trump, and ignore his white supremacist movement, and join him in hyper focusing on this irrelevant DSA distraction.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Sound is waves.
Nope, waves are not sound without an ear and a brain to perceive them, waves by themselves to not create a subjective sensory experience
Noise is created within.
Yeah, like sound.
We make all the noise that we hear.
The question becomes, if a tree falls crushing Donald Trump and nobody is there to see it, is it still funny?
@Misterio wrote:
Skinny Bob, the gray alien
Gray alien, really? Skin color doesn't matter to Skinny Bob, and it shouldn't matter to you.
I have a dream that aliens will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Debby wrote:
Sorry y mistake. Abraham came before Moses. The Jews were performing circumcision before preserving their backsides.
All this because God mooned Moses?
FLRW wrote:
You are a devout man of great faith.
Praise the Lord. Did you know that I look like Rev. Jim Bakker? OMG, do you think Debby looks like Tammy Faye?
I think Debby is Tammy Faye incarnated.
You are still blathering nonsense.
Debby wrote:
Moses asked God to show him his glory. It was God that chose to show Moses his backlside. The Jews were told later by Abraham God wanted their front side to be circumcised. That is how we know which side the Jews are on depending on which side they show first.
Abtaham wasn't "later" than Moses, he preceded Moses by over 600 years.
I think you fell out of the Stupid Tree and hit every single branch on the way down.
FLRW wrote:
It's not faith, it's science. Science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, coming from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge.
No shit, thanks for sharing.
What you wrote wasn't science.
FLRW wrote: Faith is the lowest level of cognition It’s worthless except to provide magical imaginary assurance that something is real or may happen. It’s magical thinking that was not discarded after childhood.
Faith became a “get out of jail free” card for Christians who can carry out all kinds of atrocities, but still get to heaven if they accept Jesus as their savior. The religion is a scam-a manipulation.
This is a statement of religious belief and it's strictly a matter of faith.
You are a devout man of great faith.
FLRW wrote:
Faith is the lowest level of cognition It’s worthless except to provide magical imaginary assurance that something is real or may happen. It’s magical thinking that was not discarded after childhood.
Faith became a “get out of jail free” card for Christians who can carry out all kinds of atrocities, but still get to heaven if they accept Jesus as their savior. The religion is a scam-a manipulation.
You have faith that this is true, right?
Debby wrote:
The topic is about image of God . The Bible says it’s blasphemy to create image of God. Exodus 20:4.
I guess it's a reading comprehension problem, sorry, but I don't think I can dumb down my question any further.
You should go back to telling us about how Moses thought God had a nice ass.
Christians understand six days is not six billion years, not six weeks, not about 14 billion years, but six days that the Word of God says God made Heaven and Earth.
According to our best science, six days is 14 billion years.
I'm going to paraphrase a very interesting analysis originally presented by Gerald Scroeder, an American Physicist and Orthodox Jew.
Here is how the currently accepted cosmological theory of time, derived from the General Theory of Relativity, applies to the literal "six days' objection.
According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in what we call the “Big Bang”. What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of “the beginning” is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, which would be a creator God’s frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.
The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.
Therefore, current Big Bang scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word “time” began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as “quark confinement”. The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty-four-hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today’s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.
So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty-four-hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as roughly fifteen billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.
So there you go, there is no conflict between six days and 14 billion years, it's just a matter of physics and the frame of reference.
Interesting.
Debby wrote:
What I am saying is the obsession the Jews had with God was revealed by their prophets Abraham and Moses. Abraham made the covenant of circumcision and Moses revealed God’s backside. When God switched to the 10 commandments from his private parts, it overwhelmed the Jews.
But why are you saying it, you are saying it in response to a question, and it has nothing to do with the question.
If the answer is "I don't know", then just say "I don't know".
Debby wrote:
Why do you think it took Moses 40 years to reach Israel which was less than a two weeks journey from Egypt? He couldn’t get God’s backside out of his mind.
why the Jews are famous for their extreme religious views, Abraham focused on circumcision and Moses was obsessed with God’s backside. But Jesus who had both was rejected.
So, you are saying that the reason Jesus made conflicting statements about being God is because Moses thought God had a nice ass and Abraham was circumscribed?
Damn, you actually got weirder, I didn't think that was possible.
Skipper wrote:
Have faith FLRW.
don't let this guy start cults on the internet. I might sign up
Hey now, you already joined Sidewalkerism, you can't just sign up with other cults, Sidewalkerism requires your total allegiance.
Don't push it or I'll have you reprogrammed.
Debby wrote:
This is why the Jews failed to recognize or accept Jesus as God because God only showed Moses his backside.Exodus 33. The Jews could not make the match when Jesus told them if they saw him they saw the father. John 14:9. Jesus’s face did not match God’s backside.
when Christian’s say the Jews got it all backwards, they are referring to this comparison mixup.
Another non-sequitur.
You don't know
Debby wrote:
Jesus was comparing backsides. John 14:9 If you have seen me you have seen the Father. The people insisted he show more. That’s when Jesus invoked faith to see the rest.
I guess you didn't understand the question.
Debby wrote:
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
john 14:9 If you have seen me you have seen the Father.
Point being that Jesus made conflicting statements in that respect, why?
Debby wrote:
If that is the image of God then that is what Jesus looked like too. But Jesus died at 33.
John 14:9 if you have seen me, you have seen the father.
Matthew 19:17 "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
John 7:16 "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."
John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I"
It looks a lot like you, is that intentional...the made in his image thing?
Misterio wrote:
The best way to have a girlfriend is to have a bulging wallet, no matter how horrendous you are.
I can assure you that if you impress a girl with a luxurious car or an expensive gift, you already have your cock halfway in.
Another thing that helps, when a girl looks at you, lick your eyebrows.
SkepticalOne wrote:
FLRW wrote:
Yes, that is a picture of me, Sidewalker, Ebuc, SL, and SkepticalOne at our Club.
I'm the chunky one...
I'm the good dancer.
Dating advice from the guy who's never been on a date LOL.
Incels just crack me up.
CSDebate27 wrote:
I know this will seem super nerdy and out of place with philosophical debates on this site, but do you have a favorite field/area of mathematics?
Being a su[per nerd myself, I think it's a great question.
I'm most interested in the philosophical foundations of mathematics, which I suppose is more about mathematics, rather than an actual field/area of mathematics.
When it comes to an actual field/area of mathematics, for me it's Geometry, I've always found Geometry to be the most intuitively obvious field of mathematics, at least compared to the rest of mathematics, which I find very difficult.
I probably like the philosophy of mathematics because I don't like doing mathematics.
Democratic Socialism is so last year, it's communism now, try to keep up.
House GOP memo shows ‘socialist’ scare tactics aren’t working
Kermos wrote:
Faith is proof of things not seen; in other words, that which you say/think but not see is what you believe.
I want to give you an idea of who I am. I was an evolutionist, but Christ changed me into a Christian.
Christians can believe in evolution, most do I think, becoming a Christian doesn’t necessitate ending belief in evolution by any stretch of the imagination.
Many scientists believe the beginning of Universe was about 13.8 billion years ago. A subset of those scientists believe an infinitesimally small, densely packed, super-heated region (point) exploded as the Big Bang, and other scientists believe that nothing exploded as the Big Bang.
The mechanics aren’t completely worked out, but Big Bang Cosmology is the scientific consensus.
Regardless of alternative models, such as a cyclically oscillating Universe, I am focusing on the beginning, that is, the origin of the Universe.
I believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old.
You are trying to sell us on a deceitful God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age, placing a preponderance of overwhelming evidence of evolution having occurred as some kind of hoax. Your concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept; it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do.
For me, and not for scientists of the Big Bang persuasion, "faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen" ([Hebrews 11:1](https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm)) applies because my assurance of things hoped for is my Lord and my God Jesus Christ's triumphant return while scientists are not hoping for the Big Bang since scientists believe the Big Bang is an event of the past.
I’m pretty sure Christians “of the Big Bang persuasion” define faith that way also, the rest of this paragraph does not make any sense.
Scientists believe the Big Bang Theory is science. I postulate that the Big Bang Theory is based on faith. I propose scientists of the Big Bang Theory are more accurately identified as philosophers of the Big Bang Philosophy or Evolution religion, and I write this because of the difference between science and faith. Can any of you scientists rationally explain away this postulate as wrong?
Sure, the Big Bang is science because it is a scientific theory based on scientific observations, philosophy and science are two different things. Just because faith is involved in science, that doesn’t mean it isn’t science. One of the founders of modern physics, Max Planck said: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with"
LiveScience presents an excellent explanation of the term science at [www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html](https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html) with an essence of the scientific method including (1) hypothesis, (2) repeatable observation and experimentation, and (3) conclusions. This is pertinent to this thread.
Yes, LiveScience provides a pretty good rough overview of the scientific method, and that method is the process by which scientists arrived at Big Bang Cosmology.
Your post is unfounded and based on a contrived presumption that the theory of evolution in some way contradicts Christian faith, and it doesn't. The theory of evolution does not in any way eliminate the mystery of life, question the existence of God, or bring into doubt any of the basic tenets of Christianity. I certainly can’t say the same thing about your postulated God of deception.
As far as science is concerned, what you are contending requires a direct refutation of the most general principles of most of our physical and biological sciences. As a unifying theory of biology, evolution holds true. Its mechanisms are by no means completely understood but the evolutionary framework is absolutely central to science.
The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.
Flat out denial of the theory of Evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences, you can't really propose that the theory evolution is false without being fundamentally anti-scientific. You can contend that the theory of evolution is incomplete, nobody claims it is complete, but you can’t really deny evolution and still be talking about science. If you could in fact, deny the theory of evolution, it would, in effect, unravel the world of science.
I’m sorry, but I think your post betrays a lack of understanding of both science and Christianity. I cannot accept your contrived conflict between religious truth and scientific truth because to do so I would have to believe in a self-contradicting God; and that is something I simply cannot accept.