Yellow Bullet Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
62521 - 62540 of 62667 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,352 Posts
So when You speculate that the days in Exodus are not the same as the days at T0 and onward….you are talking out of your ass without evidence. Got it. Is a Day on Mars, the same as a day on Earth as defined by what a day is defined as one revolution where the Sun is visible? I asked that in my lengthy response to Butcher. What is a day? What is the absolute definition of time? You must know for certain Schidtty if you hold such a tight hold on what it means. You lose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #62,524 ·
Was
So when You speculate that the days in Exodus are not the same as the days at T0 and onward….you are talking out of your ass without evidence. Got it. Is a Day on Mars, the same as a day on Earth as defined by what a day is defined as one revolution where the Sun is visible? I asked that in my lengthy response to Butcher. What is a day? What is the absolute definition of time? You must know for certain Schidtty if you hold such a tight hold on what it means. You lose.
Exodus clarified it.

I'm not surprised that you are incapable of facing that fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #62,525 ·
Now that just defines your ignorance and lack of ability to debate
Bye bye
You gotta admit it depicts your style, claiming that you are winning while you are losing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #62,526 · (Edited)
How about basic math?

Is the value of pi() 3?

How many things does the bible have to be wrong about to prove that it was written by humans?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
No, I am actually vacationing in ME. That is the reason for any delay in response



First question:
If you are consider what a day meant well before the Gregorian Calendar then I suppose it would be considered 6 days by whatever definition applys. I am certain you wont be satisfied by that answer! but consider the definition of a day on Earth, and then use that mechanism to define a day and year on Mars. Two separate “time” measurements, both describing the observers reference, but which one is absolute? Now consider a being dwelling throughout the universe. If He existed, what is the reference for defining a “Day”. My conclusion is that the Creation was formed in six, perhaps not uniform, but distinct time periods.

The second statement is indeterminant because I can honestly say I do not know,. But, I do not consider the Creation event to have happened over six Gregorian calandra days or periods of light and darkness on Earth

Third question
My consideration of the sixth day is when God made modern man in the current state of being

Fourth issue:
I do not think the presence of modern man and the Earth as observed in the context of geology has any interdependence. I share your belief in the age of the physical Earth and trust the radio-dating

Your last statement qualifies you as a childish tool.
If you cannot grasp the concepts objectively, whether you believe them or not, you are not worth the time to continue debate.

So, one more time….define what is wrong with Genesis and how is it wrong? I challenged you last time on the concept of waters flowing over the Earth…that is one you got hung up on. From you questions you seem fixed on time being dependent on a Gregorian Calendar…how myopic and small minded.
Is this a genuine, well thought out response? If it is, I will respond to it. However, I have my doubts. Because if it is, this is probably the weakest argument you’ve attempted yet. Please just confirm that you’re being serious, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
3127 pages, answer again NO! even if I took a bunch of people up a mountain, the lets say showed them a well preserved bigass boat with a trim tag that says manufactured by Noah and family- year 2 B.C. Still wouldn't be convinced.
So there isn't anything close. some christians feel there smarter than some atheist and viseversa.
as far science, there's an awful lot missing. sort of like politics, anything that is said isn't really going to change someones mind. regardless
I guess guys here like the debate. Lets see how many more pages this can go.
 

·
Intellectual Turd Chaser
Joined
·
6,933 Posts
even if I took a bunch of people up a mountain, the lets say showed them a well preserved bigass boat with a trim tag that says manufactured by Noah and family- year 2 B.C. Still wouldn't be convinced.
How would that demonstrate the existence of a god?
 

·
Super Moderator
1968 Camaro Z28, 1933 Chevy Coupe, 2004 Silverado Z71, 1946 Chevy PU, 2000 Custom Harley Davidson
Joined
·
51,598 Posts
3127 pages, answer again NO! even if I took a bunch of people up a mountain, the lets say showed them a well preserved bigass boat with a trim tag that says manufactured by Noah and family- year 2 B.C. Still wouldn't be convinced.
So there isn't anything close. some christians feel there smarter than some atheist and viseversa.
as far science, there's an awful lot missing. sort of like politics, anything that is said isn't really going to change someones mind. regardless
I guess guys here like the debate. Lets see how many more pages this can go.
Religion and politics. Unless chatting with someone who believes in the same thing you do, there really isn't any need to discuss them at all. I have never in my entire life heard of a Liberal convincing a Conservative to switch alliances or vice versa, ( but I have witnessed plenty of young liberals switching sides when they grew older and wiser and learned about how real life works)...nor have I ever heard of an atheist succeeding in convincing a Christian that God doesn't exist, or vice versa.
 

·
Super Moderator
1968 Camaro Z28, 1933 Chevy Coupe, 2004 Silverado Z71, 1946 Chevy PU, 2000 Custom Harley Davidson
Joined
·
51,598 Posts
It all comes down to the word faith. The word "Faith" in itself explains everything. To believe in something that has no proof it exists. When you have faith in a pitcher to throw a good game tonight, you have no idea if he will do it or not. You can't prove he will. When you say you have faith in a doctor solving your medical problem, or that your wife won't cheat on you,....it's something you have no proof will or won't happen.

The OP asked 8 years ago...
Non believers; what would convince you that god exists?

The answer is clear. They want proof. They want to meet Jesus, witness his miracles, etc,..etc,... They have no faith that there is a God. It's that simple, really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killa B

·
Intellectual Turd Chaser
Joined
·
6,933 Posts
It all comes down to the word faith. The word "Faith" in itself explains everything. To believe in something that has no proof it exists. When you have faith in a pitcher to throw a good game tonight, you have no idea if he will do it or not. You can't prove he will. When you say you have faith in a doctor solving your medical problem, or that your wife won't cheat on you,....it's something you have no proof will or won't happen.

The OP asked 8 years ago...
Non believers; what would convince you that god exists?

The answer is clear. They want proof. They want to meet Jesus, witness his miracles, etc,..etc,... They have no faith that there is a God. It's that simple, really.
Faith as in belief absent evidence I have no use for.

Faith as a usage of trust, I just use the word trust. And that trust is based on evidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
It all comes down to the word faith. The word "Faith" in itself explains everything. To believe in something that has no proof it exists. When you have faith in a pitcher to throw a good game tonight, you have no idea if he will do it or not. You can't prove he will. When you say you have faith in a doctor solving your medical problem, or that your wife won't cheat on you,....it's something you have no proof will or won't happen.

The OP asked 8 years ago...
Non believers; what would convince you that god exists?

The answer is clear. They want proof. They want to meet Jesus, witness his miracles, etc,..etc,... They have no faith that there is a God. It's that simple, really.
As pointed out, you’re talking about two different types of “faith” here. You’re trying to convince yourself that they are the same, they are not.

Make no mistake, EVERYBODY in this thread wants evidence. The problem is that believers, at best, significantly lower their standard of evidence to confirm their religious belief. At worst, they have no understanding of what evidence is.

Understanding evidence is very important in our society. Taking pride in not understanding evidence should be looked down on. Remember, 12 people were shown a significant amount of evidence that OJ Simpson committed murder. All 12 agreed that there wasn’t enough to prove he was guilty. That was because, at least in part, they wanted to believe that OJ was a “good guy”, because he was famous and they knew him. When your beliefs override actual evidence, something is wrong

Everybody in this thread is in agreement about all of the other religions, they’re not real. However, about half of the people in this thread make an exception for one story for no good reason, because there is no significant evidence for it being more “real” than all of the other religions.

.That’s the hypocritical part. They can look at all of the other religions and say there isn’t enough evidence, so I don’t believe in that religion. When they turn back to their religion, even though it has the exact same type of evidence as all of the others, they think that is significant evidence to believe in their Deity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
Not when the science states that we can be as little as 96% homosapien
and the rest something else.
Now there is that other classification where homosapien is used to describe
modern humans overall as to the way we use our environment.
What? Are you under the impression that we’re 96% Homosapien, 2% equine, 1% canine and 1% raptor? Or are we 96% Homosapien and 4% of our previous ancestors? Why would that be a problem?

I guess it could be a problem if someone doesn't understand, or accept, Evolution. But that would be a problem in their understanding, not a problem in the research or the evidence.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,256 Posts
What? Are you under the impression that we’re 96% Homosapien, 2% equine, 1% canine and 1% raptor? Or are we 96% Homosapien and 4% of our previous ancestors? Why would that be a problem?

I guess it could be a problem if someone doesn't understand, or accept, Evolution. But that would be a problem in their understanding, not a problem in the research or the evidence.
You do understand that our dna has been fully mapped and it's been discovered that we're NOT 100% homosapien.
We have other dna from breeding with hominids. Neanderthal is what makes us white.

Woke agendas keeps putting a spin on what is a homosapien.
From the perspective that I speak from, homosapien evolved from homoerectus and not neanderthal.
Sapiens later bred with neanderthal thus creating us.
Sapiens did in fact bred with remaining populations of erectus thus creating the modern african.

We should be called homosapiens in today's modern world.
We should be called by our racial description as a species of human.

The term homosapien is used in two ways.
The way I use it refers to the early species of man.
I don't like using it the other way because of the way it's abused by those who push a one race agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
You do understand that our dna has been fully mapped and it's been discovered that we're NOT 100% homosapien.
We have other dna from breeding with hominids. Neanderthal is what makes us white.

Woke agendas keeps putting a spin on what is a homosapien.
From the perspective that I speak from, homosapien evolved from homoerectus and not neanderthal.
Sapiens later bred with neanderthal thus creating us.
Sapiens did in fact bred with remaining populations of erectus thus creating the modern african.

We should be called homosapiens in today's modern world.
We should be called by our racial description as a species of human.

The term homosapien is used in two ways.
The way I use it refers to the early species of man.
I don't like using it the other way because of the way it's abused by those who push a one race agenda.
I’m not trying insult you, but you don’t seem to fully understand evolution. You have a decent grasp of it, but there are things you don’t get or haven’t learned. You are well informed, but this post makes it seem like you’re missing some things. I’m not saying I’m an expert, I’m not, but there are no real “holes” in the theory.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,256 Posts
I’m not trying insult you, but you don’t seem to fully understand evolution. You have a decent grasp of it, but there are things you don’t get or haven’t learned. You are well informed, but this post makes it seem like you’re missing some things. I’m not saying I’m an expert, I’m not, but there are no real “holes” in the theory.
.........and these missing things are what?

Literally stating from recent and verified discoveries spanning Genetics and Evolution.
Interspecies breeding had a huge role in what we call modern man.
It's said that the dog came from a wolf......but when bred together we don't refer the
offspring as a wolf or dog.
When this involves humans we still say we're homosapiens.......we're not just
homosapiens.

It's said that we share up to 98% of dna due to having a common ancester with
neanderthals.
My question to you is this, what part of that 98% dna came from them and what
part came from sapiens?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
Ok, perhaps I’m misinterpreting your point, maybe I’m not. Everything you’ve posted in this thread is perfect evidence for evolution. It’s not odd, or bizarre, that we’re that way. It would be very odd if we were NOT that way.

Before we got to Homoerectus, there was a split. One version evolved into great apes, the other version became us. As you’re probably aware, there were several “branches” in each of those lines.

Homoerectus evolved into Homosapien-Sapien and Homosapien-Neanderthal. Those aren’t clear, definitive lines. A Homoerectus mother didn’t give birth to a Homosapien baby one day. It is a slow, small change process. In other words, one day a Homoerectus mother, whose DNA was 50% Erectus and 50% Sapien, gave birth to a baby that was 49% Erectus and 51% Sapien.

There is no way that Sapien didn’t breed with Erectus and there is no way Sapien-Sapien didn’t breed with Sapien-Neanderthal. It would be impossible for that to not happen.

Now we’re up to 98% Sapien DNA. Are you under the impression that we’re not still evolving? It doesn’t have a goal. It doesn’t have an endpoint. It is a never ending process of recreation. The only thing that would stop it is if we (the human race) were wiped out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,161 Posts
It all comes down to the word faith. The word "Faith" in itself explains everything. To believe in something that has no proof it exists. When you have faith in a pitcher to throw a good game tonight, you have no idea if he will do it or not. You can't prove he will. When you say you have faith in a doctor solving your medical problem, or that your wife won't cheat on you,....it's something you have no proof will or won't happen.

The OP asked 8 years ago...
Non believers; what would convince you that god exists?

The answer is clear. They want proof. They want to meet Jesus, witness his miracles, etc,..etc,... They have no faith that there is a God. It's that simple, really.
Ohhh like HORAS MITHRA DIONYSUS ATTIS KRISHNA hahahahhahahhah comic book hero's like ur JESUS
 
62521 - 62540 of 62667 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top