Atheistforums.com

In my last post I answer a question "who did Adam's son's mary" With: the evolved man outside the garden.

Then I relaize I never shared my version of Origins with you

Very simply put, I point out their is no time line between the creation of man and the fall of man. I also point out that outside of details of creation itself everything mentioned, takes place in the Garden. Basically between the four rivers that define it, God created a picture of the world that would be consistent with the evolutionary progress of man at the time of the fall. (whatever evolution says was from the beginning to about 6000 years ago)

Evolved man or "monkey man" (man who developed outside the Garden)  is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man the one whom God breathed life into, would be man with a soul. Keeping in mind that the Genesis 2 account is a garden only account.

That would leave room for whole complete fossil record that could not biblically be reconciled before. meaning how ever long science needs from the beginning to the fall of man could have happened while adam and eve were in the garden. It also explains the city Cain moved to and the wives and husbands the children of Adam and Eve took for themselves. (They intermingled with monkey man/woman and pass their gift/soul onto their children.)

Now I know the goto verse to disprove this is in Genesis 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

In the English it seems that Adam's total existence was 930 years. But when we look at the Hebrew the word that is translated "lived" is:Chaya it means:1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life etc... (In short Mortal life)

At the fall Adam's eternal existence with God died as promised in Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

When they were exiled they were given "Chay" which means a Mortal life, of plants, of animals, dependent on water.
Genesis 3:
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

At this point Adam's immortality ended and his clock started on his 930 years his "chay/mortal life." These were all of the days He spent on THIS Earth. (not the Garden/Presents of God/Heaven)


How do we know they were immortal in the Garden with God? because of Genesis 2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;

Amongest those trees was the tree of life. What did the tree of life do?

Genesis 3:22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

So to recap:
God created Man and woman and placed them in the garden. They could have been there a day before eating the forbidden fruit or they could have been there the 900 million bazillion years the scientist believe it took to evolve. Why? because there is no recorded time time between: "In the beginning" and the fall of man. Only speculation because we can count the generations back 6000 or so years.

When in fact all we can really say is that man has been out of the Garden 6000 or so years. We know the Garden was a sanctuary, and that God kept Man created in His image there for an undisclosed amount of time. This does not means the rest of the world did not have to evolve as the undeniable fossil record proves.

Something very important to note this is NOT "Gap theory" or Creation theory as made popular in the 17 century. Even though the empty term Gap Creation theory can apply, as far as I know this is something very new.

Why is it important to distance this theory from Gap creation theory?? Because it combines the unmolested Genesis account AS RECORDED IN THE BIBLE, with the evolutionary data we have discovered and can not other wise reconcile. Without Adding anything to scripture or taking anything away. This also explains several other creation "paradoxes" that atheist tend to use to disprove the genesis account.

I have only taken the face value account of Genesis and lined the holes up with the holes in the evolutionary account of origins and they fit together perfectly by simply leaving out the time line the church and others put on the creation narritive.


Note: before this all gets out of hand, know I'm not teaching this nor am I saying God say whatever.. This is one of many possiblities as to the origins of man and this world. This to me simply assimilated both narritives into a neat little package I'VE never heard discussed before unless I brought it up.

1. Where are you getting this from?

2. Adam was not the last man in the Bible to have lived an unnaturally long life, so your explanation for how he was so old does not help.

3. So if Adam and Even had children in the Garden of Eden, as you suggest, then did God punish them for things their parents did?

4. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that God allowed man to evolve over time, and that before Adam, none of them had a soul. Are you're saying that the children of Adam and Eve married and had children evolved humans who had no souls?

5. How do you account for the Bible saying that God created Adam on the sixth day of creation? If man evolved over millions of years, then creating Adam from clay and Eve from his rib would be completely unnecessary. Humans are already there! And if they were created before evolution came up with humans, then what was the point of waiting for evolution to happen? Humans are already there!

6. Did death exist before the Fall? If not, your explanation does not explain the fossil record at all. Also, evolution requires death to work, because the ones most likely to survive and have children before dying would pass on their genes. But if death did happen before the Fall, then you contradict the Bible, which says that God cursed the land and the animals after Adam sinned.

7. The creation story still says that the Earth and was filled with vegetation before the sun and stars were made, that sea life and aviary life were created at the same time, and that humans and all life on land was created on the same day. Even if you weave microscopic life and dinosaurs into the narrative, and even if you treated each day as symbolic of a period of hundreds of millions of years, the order of things would still be WAY off. Also note that the Bible never says that God created the waters. It was already there.

OP,

Present evidence, or I don't care what bends and twists you force your brain into.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 19, 2017, 04:38:43 PM
1. Where are you getting this from?

was shown in a waking dream after praying over the matter looking for an answer. the whole thing including my first draft took like 20 mins

Quote
2. Adam was not the last man in the Bible to have lived an unnaturally long life, so your explanation for how he was so old does not help.

The counter to the argument is Adam live 930 meaning from his creation by God the first time. which means then the garden is 6000 old if you count back from now through Christ and the genealogies found in the book of MT to Adam. but through my explanation Adam live 930 after the garden which means the fall of man took place 6000, not the birth of adam which makes the Garden/gen 2 a whole lot older.

Quote
3. So if Adam and Even had children in the Garden of Eden, as you suggest, then did God punish them for things their parents did?

they didn't have kids in the garden. they had them outside the garden when the bible says they did. think of the garden as a fish bowl where time stood still for billions of years. and the rest of the world evolves naturally like science says it does.

Quote

4. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that God allowed man to evolve over time, and that before Adam, none of them had a soul.
/quote] not allow to preach but if you look after day seven and God rests in Genesis 2 the chapter describes a second creation which is out of sequence of chapter 1. that is because it does not describe the creation of the heaven and earth but of what happened day 3 1/2 outside the garden, and God builds the garden and everything inside it sometime on the third day. so everything that happens in genesis from then on happens in the garden at it's own pace, while the rest of the world is left to evolve on it's own

Quote
Are you're saying that the children of Adam and Eve married and had children evolved humans who had no souls?

no souls right, because God gave Adam "the breath of life which translates 'living soul' the 6th day man was just man made in the image of God. we simply assume his name is adam after the man made in the garden, but nothing in gen 1 or 2 says they are the same man.

Quote
5. How do you account for the Bible saying that God created Adam on the sixth day of creation?

you mean monkey man or evolved man.. as before nothing says this man made in God's image was the Adam God gave a soul.

Quote
If man evolved over millions of years, then creating Adam from clay and Eve from his rib would be completely unnecessary.

Remember God created eve in the garden on a literal day three women would not evolve for billions of years.

Quote
Humans are already there!

or rather the seedsof humanity.

Quote
And if they were created before evolution came up with humans, then what was the point of waiting for evolution to happen? Humans are already there!

genetic stock for the sons and daughters of adam to breed with so that they would fill the world, and eventually heaven with saved souls.

Quote
6. Did death exist before the Fall?

not in the garden

QuoteIf not, your explanation does not explain the fossil record at all.

there were never any fossils found in the purposed garden site.

Quote
Also, evolution requires death to work, because the ones most likely to survive and have children before dying would pass on their genes. But if death did happen before the Fall, then you contradict the Bible, which says that God cursed the land and the animals after Adam sinned.

what happens in the garden stayed in the garden. the rest of the world evolved naturally.

Quote
7. The creation story still says that the Earth and was filled with vegetation before the sun and stars were made,

holy crap dude. God made light on day one what the friggen problem is? can you not phathom light with out the sun? seriously never turned on a light bulb? do you think if we can rig a light bulb God (who idk is described of being made of light/the substance made on day one with out the SUN) couldn't figure out how to illuminate the earth on a cloudy day? Maybe this explains how our oldest species of plants grow far better in different light other than natural sun light.

Quote
that sea life and aviary life were created at the same time, and that humans and all life on land was created on the same day.

All you need do to resolve all of this is ask one question. Does the ancient hebrew have a modern understanding of life? The answe is no. so when you see specific creatures know the bible is not talking about specific geneus and species. it can't as those classification and names had not been invented yet. So the translators work backwards into a more simplistic zoological understanding. Ever heard the "bird bat debate?" that is some obscure verse God calls a bat a bird of the air? What if I told you the hebrew langage was not so subdivided back then and could not lingustically divide a bird from bat. for them back then two things flew birds "tsippor" and insects davar.

So like it our not what I am saying is the hebrew understanding of the study of anaimal life on the planet was.... limited. they may say bird you may say dinosaur you may primordial ooze they may say fish because how animals where distinguished were more about where they lived and what they ate then philum geneus and species.

QuoteEven if you weave microscopic life and dinosaurs into the narrative, and even if you treated each day as symbolic of a period of hundreds of millions of years, the order of things would still be WAY off. Also note that the Bible never says that God created the waters. It was already there.

and if every day was just a single day? and God simply seeded those species on those days?

That even exlains why He made the garden on day 3 1/2 (couldn't wait to see what was going to be what 100 billion years later.) maybe the garden was a porthole where he could see the future and what each seed would do who knows.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 19, 2017, 05:36:23 PM
OP,

Present evidence, or I don't care what bends and twists you force your brain into.

I did in the OP

or did you not understand the evidence when it was staring back at you?

I showed conclusively that there is no time line between the end of creation, and the fall of man as we all once persumed.. That means all of this could indeed have happened. Why? because if Adam's life was 930 on this world (and not incuding the garden) then the earth could have been created in 7 days and still have evolve from whatever science now says happened.

So basically because of our unwillingness to look at a traditional reading of a very old story we missed out on how the creation account can be made to neatly fit in whatever evolutionary account you want. Time is no longer a factor one you understand Adam did die on the day of his fall from grace and was reborn to serve in this life as a regular man.

In the end it shows no matter what you believe about creation it is all a matter of faith anyway.. because you no more could produce evidence that your take must exclude mine, anymore than I must include all of evolution into my creation account.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 06:06:01 PM
I did in the OP

or did you not understand the evidence when it was staring back at you?

I showed conclusively that there is no time line between the end of creation, and the fall of man as we all once persumed.. That means all of this could indeed have happened. Why? because if Adam's life was 930 on this world (and not incuding the garden) then the earth could have been created in 7 days and still have evolve from whatever science now says happened.

So basically because of our unwillingness to look at a traditional reading of a very old story we missed out on how the creation account can be made to neatly fit in whatever evolutionary account you want. Time is no longer a factor one you understand Adam did die on the day of his fall from grace and was reborn to serve in this life as a regular man.

In the end it shows no matter what you believe about creation it is all a matter of faith anyway.. because you no more could produce evidence that your take must exclude mine, anymore than I must include all of evolution into my creation account.

All I see is a bunch of claims, Drich. And more claims to back up those claims. But never a bedrock. An insane idea supported by bible-verses. I see a vague attempt to either nulify what is proven and in failing that reconcile it by claiming your claims are on the same level. They are not. Yours are added claims without a bedrock. I don't need to produce evidence that 'my take' must exclude yours. You must provide evidence to credit what you add to the equation and otherwise, leave it at the door.

sport... the claims are backed up

There is not a time line between the fall of Man and the end of creation. which make my little narrative possible. And as I said in the op this answers alot of different creation paradoxes. all of which are true and are certified

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 06:29:10 PM
sport... the claims are backed up

There is not a time line between the fall of Man and the end of creation. which make my little narrative possible. And as I said in the op this answers alot of different creation paradoxes. all of which are true and are certified

And what is it that backs it up, exactly? I honestly couldn't get it out of your OP?
Point out what in your OP exactly is evidence. Concider me an idiot. Heck, if you're right, you wouldn't be far off. So indulge me, talk to me as if I'm an idiot and explain.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 06:06:01 PMbecause if Adam's life was 930 on this world (and not incuding the garden) then the earth could have been created in 7 days

And if pigs had wings I could fly to China on one's back.

I have waking dreams to, or vivid dreams, or rarely ... visions (but not hallucinations).  But I don't base my religion on them.  As Patanjali says in the Yoga Sutras ... siddhi (supernatural works) are a distraction, not the goal.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMwas shown in a waking dream after praying over the matter looking for an answer. the whole thing including my first draft took like 20 mins

Please try to fix your quotes in the future. It's confusing to read and a pain to reply to.

So this is divine inspiration, huh? Are you a prophet now? Maybe you should consider proposing to have this canonized in the Bible.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMThe counter to the argument is Adam live 930 meaning from his creation by God the first time. which means then the garden is 6000 old if you count back from now through Christ and the genealogies found in the book of MT to Adam. but through my explanation Adam live 930 after the garden which means the fall of man took place 6000, not the birth of adam which makes the Garden/gen 2 a whole lot older.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fgg9qRsDdHw/UdskrtWhIQI/AAAAAAAARYU/mP0rJlHj3Pg/s1600/wtf.gif)

Uhh... Okay?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMthey didn't have kids in the garden. they had them outside the garden when the bible says they did. think of the garden as a fish bowl where time stood still for billions of years. and the rest of the world evolves naturally like science says it does.

Okay... But why? Does God enjoy watching animals suffer? He didn't even try to create a world without death? Your explanation attempts to redeem the old myths of the Bible with science, but it doesn't really explain anything. I could say that dinosaurs used to drive cars, but the reason we haven't found evidence of cars was because the aliens came and stole all their stuff, and it'd be just as credible as everything you've said. Your explanations have no basis in fact, and it only brings more questions than it answers.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMnot allow to preach but if you look after day seven and God rests in Genesis 2 the chapter describes a second creation which is out of sequence of chapter 1. that is because it does not describe the creation of the heaven and earth but of what happened day 3 1/2 outside the garden, and God builds the garden and everything inside it sometime on the third day. so everything that happens in genesis from then on happens in the garden at it's own pace, while the rest of the world is left to evolve on it's own

I guess God just likes to fuck with us. "Man. Six thousand years from now, people are going to be finding fossils millions of years old and using it as evidence against the Bible. And Christians will continue to believe in a six thousand year old Earth and look like complete idiots to everyone else. This is going to be hilarious."

Also, just so you know, Jews do not see the first two chapters as two separate creations. The second just gives more focus to the part where God made humans.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMno souls right, because God gave Adam "the breath of life which translates 'living soul' the 6th day man was just man made in the image of God. we simply assume his name is adam after the man made in the garden, but nothing in gen 1 or 2 says they are the same man.

Imagine having a wife who was fully human, but had no soul. No matter how much you loved her, you'd know she was just an empty vessel. You'd know that after you both were dead, you would never meet her on the other side. Would you be fine with that?

Actually, much of the Bible treats women like they have no souls anyway, so...

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMyou mean monkey man or evolved man.. as before nothing says this man made in God's image was the Adam God gave a soul.

So then the humans who evolved were made in God's image, but had no soul. Most people try to justify the "God's image" thing by reinterpreting it to mean something symbolic, but I guess God really does look like a man.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMgenetic stock for the sons and daughters of adam to breed with so that they would fill the world, and eventually heaven with saved souls.

Why just...you know...create more than two human beings to begin with instead of using this convoluted plan of creating just two, leaving them in the Garden of Eden for millions of years, and then having more humans evolve, and then finally allowing Adam and Eve to have children? Also, you're telling me that Adam and Eve waited for hundreds of millions of years before having children? I know you're trying to avoid the problem of incest, but if you expect me to believe that Adam--the guy who couldn't resist the fruit of a single tree in an entire forest of fruit-filled trees--waited hundreds of millions of years to stick his thing in Eve... No. Just no.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMwhat happens in the garden stayed in the garden. the rest of the world evolved naturally.

Wait a minute. The Bible says that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden after they sinned. If the land outside of the garden was already full of death, then the only land left for God to curse after the Fall was the Garden of Eden. So God cursed the garden and then said, "Now you can't enter the garden which is the same as all the land now anyway?"

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMholy crap dude. God made light on day one what the friggen problem is? can you not phathom light with out the sun? seriously never turned on a light bulb? do you think if we can rig a light bulb God (who idk is described of being made of light/the substance made on day one with out the SUN) couldn't figure out how to illuminate the earth on a cloudy day? Maybe this explains how our oldest species of plants grow far better in different light other than natural sun light.

You're joking, right? You have to be fucking kidding me. This is some Grade A troll shit right here. You're pulling all this shit out of your ass, and then acting like I'm the one being ridiculous? Besides, you didn't even answer the fucking question you fucking idiot. Science says that the stars existed WAY before the Earth. I don't care about God's cosmic lightbulb. The order of events in the creation story is fucked up. Even if you said that the light on the first day was the Big Bang, it would have been a much smarter response than the one you're giving. You're telling me that before God created the stars in the galaxy, he created the Earth and filled it with vegetation. Where did those plants get their necessary sunlight for photosynthesis? Oh, wait. I forgot.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OB4zq9_qpcU/Uvm4Zc8cjWI/AAAAAAAAAjA/cc91qKpvsrk/s1600/magic+god+darkmatter2525,+smaller+-compressed.png)

The entire point of this bullshit you made up was to make it compatible with science. And when I point out when it still doesn't work with scientific understanding, you start pulling out God magic. Plants were not the first living things on earth. Microscopic organisms were. Life began in the water, not as vegetation. Eventually, plants did evolve, and they transformed the atmosphere of the planet, filling it with oxygen, allowing complex life to emerge. Your story does not fit in with this at all.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMAll you need do to resolve all of this is ask one question. Does the ancient hebrew have a modern understanding of life? The answe is no. so when you see specific creatures know the bible is not talking about specific geneus and species. it can't as those classification and names had not been invented yet. So the translators work backwards into a more simplistic zoological understanding. Ever heard the "bird bat debate?" that is some obscure verse God calls a bat a bird of the air? What if I told you the hebrew langage was not so subdivided back then and could not lingustically divide a bird from bat. for them back then two things flew birds "tsippor" and insects davar.

So like it our not what I am saying is the hebrew understanding of the study of anaimal life on the planet was.... limited. they may say bird you may say dinosaur you may primordial ooze they may say fish because how animals where distinguished were more about where they lived and what they ate then philum geneus and species.

(http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/ftpuploads/bloguploads/laughing-gifs-jonah-jameson.gif)

So let me get this straight. The Bible, which was divinely inspired, was limited by the knowledge of the humans who wrote it? God couldn't, you know, beam the information into their heads like he allegedly did when he gave you your vision? He couldn't give humanity an account so accurate that it could only be explained by divine inspiration?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 19, 2017, 05:56:55 PMand if every day was just a single day? and God simply seeded those species on those days?

That even exlains why He made the garden on day 3 1/2 (couldn't wait to see what was going to be what 100 billion years later.) maybe the garden was a porthole where he could see the future and what each seed would do who knows.

(https://m.popkey.co/88908e/87wQl.gif)

An Apologetics Inventor, who doesn't understand the word "evidence".  How quaint.  How typical.

Those old jews lived an aggregate of several thousand years, but evidently they never interacted with anyone after what would be their normal life span. Having an experience pool that large and never consulting them is really an indicator that someone is full of shit.

Just a weird thought, but if you had lived some 600 years farming like Adam, wouldn't you have invented SOMETHING worth being noted in a bible?  And if it was like a plow, shouldn't SOMETHING have come before that?  Sorry, that's just the gardener in me coming out...  LOL!

Drich if you go around telling people that god told you about creation in a dream, people are gonna think you're crazy. Can you discern the difference between a good argument and getting people to turn you off?

I found a white supremacist on yutube and watched a few of his videos. Maybe y'all should go check it out at truthfromgod.com. This guy says that ADAM mean ruddy; showing blood in the skin, and the only race that can show blood in the skin is white people. So earth has these ape-people from evolution and white people that were created 6,000 years ago. god only cared about his own children (white people) and the promises of the Bible only apply to them. Jesus was a white boy. The people who claim to be Jews now are imposters. Maybe what Drich says will make more sense after you watch a few of Dewey's videos ;-)

I have to say that the ideology of Dewey Tucker and Drich could turn religion on its head. Neither offers an explanation of how there could be both men that are evolved and men that are created on earth. Uhh basic question - how does species ape-man have kids with species god-man? Even if they get juiced up lookin at each other. Shouldn't there be no kids or sterile kids?

On the other hand if we are really on a planet with ape-men and god-men together I guess god cares about some of us and some of us are just f'cked.

Quote from: fencerider on June 20, 2017, 01:58:14 AM
Drich if you go around telling people that god told you about creation in a dream, people are gonna think you're crazy. Can you discern the difference between a good argument and getting people to turn you off?

I found a white supremacist on yutube and watched a few of his videos. Maybe y'all should go check it out at truthfromgod.com. This guy says that ADAM mean ruddy; showing blood in the skin, and the only race that can show blood in the skin is white people. So earth has these ape-people from evolution and white people that were created 6,000 years ago. god only cared about his own children (white people) and the promises of the Bible only apply to them. Jesus was a white boy. The people who claim to be Jews now are imposters. Maybe what Drich says will make more sense after you watch a few of Dewey's videos ;-)

I both love and hate reading the crazy posts of racists.  On the one hand, it shows how utterly ignorant they are about how skin color differences were caused by sun-exposure.  On the other, it shows how some people can get through the school system with such utter stupidity at their core.

I would like to see a final high school exam that asked basic questions of science, nature, and logic.  They wouldn't have to be difficult questions.  Just stuff like the age of the universe, age of Earth, simple human evolution, basic arithmetic, write a simple paragraph of 3 sensible sentences, etc. 

You fail, no high school degree.  Try a year again.  Make that worth "something" .

I have to say that the ideology of Dewey Tucker and Drich could turn religion on its head. Neither offers an explanation of how there could be both men that are evolved and men that are created on earth. Ugh basic question - how does species ape-man have kids with species god-man? Even if they get juiced up lookin at each other. Shouldn't there be no kids or sterile kids.
On the other hand if we are really on a planet with ape-men and god-men together I guess god cares about some of us and some of us are just f'cked.

How could Adam have lived 930 years, after God told him that he'd die "in the day" that he ate the forbidden fruit? Apparently, God lied.

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 20, 2017, 05:40:12 PM
How could Adam have lived 930 years, after God told him that he'd die "in the day" that he ate the forbidden fruit? Apparently, God lied.

Perhaps Adam died at night?  It is night somewhere, all the time.

wow....just wow......don't forget later on in the babble one third of the stars of the sky fell to the earth,,,and then later when jebus was given his promotion another third of the stars fell to the earth. I guess thats why there are no "small" stars left eh?

Quote from: aitm on June 20, 2017, 06:05:34 PM
wow....just wow......don't forget later on in the babble one third of the stars of the sky fell to the earth,,,and then later when jebus was given his promotion another third of the stars fell to the earth. I guess thats why there are no "small" stars left eh?

So then, everyone in Hollywood gets an Oscar now?

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 20, 2017, 05:40:12 PM
How could Adam have lived 930 years, after God told him that he'd die "in the day" that he ate the forbidden fruit? Apparently, God lied.

God is a liar. It was the serpent who told Adam and Eve that when they eat of the fruit, they will become like God, understanding the difference between good and evil. Despite having created the tree for some reason, God did not want Adam and Eve to understand good and evil, and made no mention that eating the fruit would grant them that kind of understanding.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 20, 2017, 06:07:16 PM
God is a liar. It is the serpent who tells Adam and Eve that when they ate of the fruit, they would become like God, understanding the difference between good and evil. Despite having created the tree for some reason, God did not want Adam and Eve to understand good and evil, and made no mention that eating the fruit would grant them that kind of understanding.

Every teenager knows that parents not only uncool, but untrustworthy too.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 20, 2017, 06:07:16 PM
God is a liar. It is the serpent who tells Adam and Eve that when they ate of the fruit, they would become like God, understanding the difference between good and evil. Despite having created the tree for some reason, God did not want Adam and Eve to understand good and evil, and made no mention that eating the fruit would grant them that kind of understanding.

I've never understood why Christians don't see that when the read the Bible!

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 20, 2017, 06:33:28 PM
I've never understood why Christians don't see that when the read the Bible!

Because they don't read the Bible.

Awesome.   You caught a live one :)

Quote from: Baruch on June 19, 2017, 07:00:54 PM
I have waking dreams to, or vivid dreams, or rarely ... visions (but not hallucinations).  But I don't base my religion on them.  As Patanjali says in the Yoga Sutras ... siddhi (supernatural works) are a distraction, not the goal.

Neither do I, however if and when they do jive with scripture and I get an insight that counteracts what is currently driving people away from God in droves, and it does not conflict with the bible. I do feel I can use that insight to give those who want to believe both a way to do it even if it is not sanctioned doctrine.

Noth of this is a matter of salvation, but you've Got to believe in God if you are to be saved, and you have to believe in science as it is propagandized as the same science that makes computers works says your daddy was a fancy monkey. (not really but you get the gist)

Now for those who want the fashionable monkey daddy they can have it with a literal 7 day creation, without changing a freaking thing in the bible, just have to remove the time line of day seven of creation and the fall of man. The bible does not ascribe a time line, so then why should we assume day 8 a&E were exiled from the garden? why not 100 billion years like evolution says?

Take the time line away and you can have your cake and eat it too... all from a 'day dream'

And we get to keep our magic man!

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 19, 2017, 07:34:10 PM
So this is divine inspiration, huh? Are you a prophet now? Maybe you should consider proposing to have this canonized in the Bible.

in the end times some of us are given over to dreams. and prophesy.. why? because the Holy Spirit has been poured out on all of us. WE ALL Have the potential now sport.

Quote(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fgg9qRsDdHw/UdskrtWhIQI/AAAAAAAARYU/mP0rJlHj3Pg/s1600/wtf.gif)

Uhh... Okay?

Okay... But why? Does God enjoy watching animals suffer? He didn't even try to create a world without death?

what was the GARDEN OF EDEN? you: it was a sactuary without death. butI don't get it.. how is the world not the garden? Because the garden was set aside on day three read genesis 2!!! everything that happens in genesis 2 happened on day 3 of creation apart from creation!!

QuoteYour explanation attempts to redeem the old myths of the Bible with science, but it doesn't really explain anything.

not meant to explain. it was meant to assimilate.

QuoteI could say that dinosaurs used to drive cars, but the reason we haven't found evidence of cars was because the aliens came and stole all their stuff, and it'd be just as credible as everything you've said. Your explanations have no basis in fact, and it only brings more questions than it answers.

only if your a moron. both creation narritives remain in tact. My addition changes neither in any way. All I do is remove the unbiblical time line placed on the garden narritive. then I point out the garden was seperate than the rest of the world. via genesis 2.

that's it.. what the big problem? besides you can refute the garden narritive by using YEC time line? nothing else has changed!!!

QuoteI guess God just likes to fuck with us. "Man. Six thousand years from now, people are going to be finding fossils millions of years old and using it as evidence against the Bible. And Christians will continue to believe in a six thousand year old Earth and look like complete idiots to everyone else. This is going to be hilarious."

lord willing we will see.

Quote
Also, just so you know, Jews do not see the first two chapters as two separate creations. The second just gives more focus to the part where God made humans.

they can't always be right. I can walk you though genesis1 and 2 if you ask/lest I be preaching.

Quote
Imagine having a wife who was fully human, but had no soul. No matter how much you loved her, you'd know she was just an empty vessel. You'd know that after you both were dead, you would never meet her on the other side. Would you be fine with that?

what is a soul what is our spirit? Soul is our celestial consciousness, and spirit is our physical one. Atheist tend to be more spirit aware while theist seek more understanding on a celestial level.

So then what would be the difference if I married a woman who was an atheist and one born without a soul? ultimate nothing in this relam in this life?

But that is not something we have to worry about. why? think back to a bottle neck in history where only people with soul survived..

QuoteActually, much of the Bible treats women like they have no souls anyway, so...

there were souless men in the monkey man crowd as well.

QuoteSo then the humans who evolved were made in God's image, but had no soul. Most people try to justify the "God's image" thing by reinterpreting it to mean something symbolic, but I guess God really does look like a man.

look like or act like..

QuoteWhy just...you know...create more than two human beings to begin with instead of using this convoluted plan of creating just two, leaving them in the Garden of Eden for millions of years, and then having more humans evolve, and then finally allowing Adam and Eve to have children?

isn't that what God did through evolution? but rather than a hand ful or million handhuned indivisuals he created a mechnism (evolution) that hand crafter people places and things to suit specific regions and enviroments, that if left alone could be used to drive an engine that would literally fill a planet...

But to directly answer your question, God does not typically do 'small things' when bigger things are needed.

QuoteAlso, you're telling me that Adam and Eve waited for hundreds of millions of years before having children? I know you're trying to avoid the problem of incest, but if you expect me to believe that Adam--the guy who couldn't resist the fruit of a single tree in an entire forest of fruit-filled trees--waited hundreds of millions of years to stick his thing in Eve... No. Just no.

It is estimated that the garden is 2/3 the size of north america... Now try to imagine 1 1000 year life probably get board with your first mud hut. then 10 thousand then a million years then two then ten the 100 million years then a billion then 18 billion then the next number science will come up with to make evolution work... now even with a living space 2/3 the size of north america one is bound to get board. you will have seen everything 100 time and done everything to do twice, except the one thing that remains a mystery... ever wonder why eve and adam were so close to the tree? Because it was the only mystry left after 18 billion years.

Remember it was not till the ate from three of knoweledge that they saw each other as naked, which is why they made cloths. kinda hard to do the hokey pokey if nether of you see each other as sexual beings.

Quote
Wait a minute. The Bible says that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden after they sinned. If the land outside of the garden was already full of death, then the only land left for God to curse after the Fall was the Garden of Eden. So God cursed the garden and then said, "Now you can't enter the garden which is the same as all the land now anyway?"

more or less yes... which is why there is a big stinking desert sitting on top of the garden now,

QuoteYou're joking, right? You have to be fucking kidding me. This is some Grade A troll shit right here. You're pulling all this shit out of your ass, and then acting like I'm the one being ridiculous? Besides, you didn't even answer the fucking question you fucking idiot. Science says that the stars existed WAY before the Earth.

holy crap dude.. let's say stars did exist before the earth.. lets say they do now (hold your toungue or i will make you eat it) if now after 100 bizillion years or however long science currently says we are just now receiving the light from stars so far away we can see the orgins of the galaxy... would that start light have been avaible to the garden 18 or so BILLION years ago? maybe ask a question if you do not understand the complexity of the question.. don't just assume I am the one who has his facts confused.

That aside I will give you a simple answer. Just like revelation is a historical telling of the end times from a 1 centruy man singular perspective, so too is the telling of the beginning. It would seem God took moses on a ride and let him view out the seven days and creation of the garden and all that followed.

So how did the stars come after? they may not have celestially, but it may have appeared that way to moses from his specific perspective. (see the 1st paragraph for possible obstructions/the limit on the speed of light and how far the stars were from earth that he could indeed see.)

QuoteI don't care about God's cosmic lightbulb. The order of events in the creation story is fucked up.

Actually they are F-ing genius. the fact that the stars came late should proove (to a wisman) that the creation narritive was witnessed, because who else that long ago would have considered the speed of light to be a midigating factor between creation of the starts and when it's light would be viewable from earth!

QuoteEven if you said that the light on the first day was the Big Bang, it would have been a much smarter response than the one you're giving. You're telling me that before God created the stars in the galaxy, he created the Earth and filled it with vegetation. Where did those plants get their necessary sunlight for photosynthesis? Oh, wait. I forgot.

Light moron, goes 1000 times beyond the visible light you are arguing for. On Day one God created the light spectrum ALL OF IT. Alpha beta gamma, x rays all of it some saylight is at the heart of time itself not just light and dark sport.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OB4zq9_qpcU/Uvm4Zc8cjWI/AAAAAAAAAjA/cc91qKpvsrk/s1600/magic+god+darkmatter2525,+smaller+-compressed.png)

QuoteThe entire point of this bullshit you made up was to make it compatible with science. And when I point out when it still doesn't work with scientific understanding, you start pulling out God magic. Plants were not the first living things on earth. Microscopic organisms were.

Sorry sport before organism you must have a source of nutrients, as in simple algae.. or PLANTS

QuoteLife began in the water, not as vegetation

and algae is... that's right vegitation. which is water born

QuoteEventually, plants did evolve, and they transformed the atmosphere of the planet, filling it with oxygen, allowing complex life to emerge. Your story does not fit in with this at all.

you are a friggen moron that does not even know his own side of the creation narrative. Alage is responsible for terriforming not more complex plants.

(http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/ftpuploads/bloguploads/laughing-gifs-jonah-jameson.gif)

Quote
So let me get this straight. The Bible, which was divinely inspired, was limited by the knowledge of the humans who wrote it? God couldn't, you know, beam the information into their heads like he allegedly did when he gave you your vision? He couldn't give humanity an account so accurate that it could only be explained by divine inspiration?

So genius, you think it best for God to beam in scientific information you would expect to see into the heads of moses or John or anyone given to a vision... Now what if your version of science is not correct? what if what God beams into the heads of his prophet is not proven to be correct till idk AFTER the second comming? so then who is better served or rather who/what generation does God need to be speaking with?

Seriously think about it 'smart guy' if God speaks to those who are left after the rapture (because those dumb asses left in science finall fig things out correctly) are the only one's who can confirm what God said through moses or John is right... What happens to the billion upon billions of sould who can not confirm what the post rapture generation can confirm???

How smart is that?

How about lets look at the way it is. God talks to the least evolved in such a way as to give enough clues for us to literally find and speak to Him and have him confirm all is true to us on a specific and personal level?

IDK I kinda like how God works now so every generation has a chance at a relationship and salvation rather than your horse crap way of saving the post rapture morons who triggered the end of the world anyway.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 20, 2017, 01:14:02 AM
Just a weird thought, but if you had lived some 600 years farming like Adam, wouldn't you have invented SOMETHING worth being noted in a bible?  And if it was like a plow, shouldn't SOMETHING have come before that?  Sorry, that's just the gardener in me coming out...  LOL!

I'm sure adam was a tard compared to the monkey men. again evolution tools and the lot were the idea of monkey man not spoiled guys.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 21, 2017, 05:26:03 PM
Light moron, goes 1000 times beyond the visible light you are arguing for. On Day one God created the light spectrum ALL OF IT. Alpha beta gamma, x rays all of it some saylight is at the heart of time itself not just light and dark sport.

Gamma rays kill plants.   And pretty much anything else.  (Alpha and beta radiation isn't even light.)

Light is just one aspect of the electromagnetic force which is just one of the four fundamental forces we know about. 

Notices Bible story overrelies on God magic and conflicts with science. Makes up story in attempt to reconcile the story with science. When confronted with science that conflicts with made up story, explains it with God magic. Dude, you're back to square one, and you're too thick to even realize it.

I mean, seriously. Did you really think that adding a few million years to the story to allow for evolution to happen would somehow fix everything? Did you really think that evolution was the only problem with the Biblical creation myth? It's not. The Bible is in contradiction with virtually every branch of science, from medicine to psychology. Evolution isn't even the main problem atheists have with the Bible. It's Christians who make it so important, even going so far as to give those who know evolution is true a cute name: "Evolutionists." If the best you've got is this God of the gaps and God magic nonsense, you're wasting your time.

We've had a lot of dense people here in the past, but you're the first I've encountered who actually claimed to have divine revelation, allowing you to rewrite scriptures. Your head is so high up in the clouds, you make all the other idiots seem grounded and totally rational in comparison. Part of me still thinks this has to be a joke. You just have to be a troll. But I've had enough experience in church to know that, unfortunately, you're probably completely serious.

Quote from: fencerider on June 20, 2017, 01:58:14 AM
Drich if you go around telling people that god told you about creation in a dream, people are gonna think you're crazy. Can you discern the difference between a good argument and getting people to turn you off?

Well one I simply said this came to me in a waking dream, which basically meant in a day dream. That said this little truth that came to me has deep and profound potential meaning, in that because there is no time line between creation and the fall. all of evolution can fit in that void of creation.

That said, so what if God gave me this waking dream??? This/stuff like this builds on the 'proof' you all claim to want to see. What I am telling you guys is God is alive and very active with His believers! Answering my prayer with a waking dream is just but one of the ways God communicates.

Think about it this 'mountain' of a problem for creationists, that has plagues us for generations is cast into the sea, by a simple day dream. Where else could a day dream like this come from, and or why hasn't it come before?

QuoteI found a white supremacist on yutube and watched a few of his videos. Maybe y'all should go check it out at truthfromgod.com. This guy says that ADAM mean ruddy; showing blood in the skin, and the only race that can show blood in the skin is white people. So earth has these ape-people from evolution and white people that were created 6,000 years ago. god only cared about his own children (white people) and the promises of the Bible only apply to them. Jesus was a white boy. The people who claim to be Jews now are imposters. Maybe what Drich says will make more sense after you watch a few of Dewey's videos ;-)

Do you not see a difference between 'my vision' and this white supremesist? I changed nothing in the evolutionary account nor have I changed anything written in the bible. All I ask anyne to do is remove the artifical time line placed between the end of creation (the 7th day) and the Fall of man (most poeple assume that happened on day 8 or 9.) I say why not have it happen 18 billion years ago? nothing in the scripture keeps that from happening, matter of fact the oppsite is true in that the elements are specifically mention in the garden to allow adam to have lived that long.

QuoteI have to say that the ideology of Dewey Tucker and Drich could turn religion on its head. Neither offers an explanation of how there could be both men that are evolved and men that are created on earth. Uhh basic question - how does species ape-man have kids with species god-man? Even if they get juiced up lookin at each other. Shouldn't there be no kids or sterile kids?

lets start over real simple. gen 2 is the garden account. meaning everything in gen 2 happens on day 3. In gen 2 God creates the first man adam and breaths a soul into him. from adam produces eve. So adam and the garden are complete repersentations of what the world looked like 6000 or so years ago. (because He knew when the fall of man would take place) So then Adam in his original form would genetically represent the progress of naturally evolved homo sapeian. So geneticall Adam and man made on the 6th day as per genesis 1 are genetically identical. however the bible never says God breathed a soul into day 6 man. or evolved man.

So again adam and the garden were made on day 3 according to genesis 2 and it was completed before the rest of the world. The garden was a future repsentation of what the evolved world would look like about 6000 years ago 9which is how long man with a soul has been outside the garden.

Quote
On the other hand if we are really on a planet with ape-men and god-men together I guess god cares about some of us and some of us are just f'cked.

Hence the floods, where only men with souls moved on.

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 20, 2017, 05:40:12 PM
How could Adam have lived 930 years, after God told him that he'd die "in the day" that he ate the forbidden fruit? Apparently, God lied.

Read the OP

He did die that day. He adam was an immortal and God striped him of that life and gave him a new life where he could be hurt and injured and the earth would work against him and he would have to struggle to put food on the table. After being an immortal and walking hand in hand with God, Adam's 930 as a human was like a prison sentence.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 20, 2017, 06:07:16 PM
God is a liar. It was the serpent who told Adam and Eve that when they eat of the fruit, they will become like God, understanding the difference between good and evil. Despite having created the tree for some reason, God did not want Adam and Eve to understand good and evil, and made no mention that eating the fruit would grant them that kind of understanding.

Because once you become aware of sin you are now responsible for it. It wasn't that Adam and eve were sin free. God simply did not hold them accountible to anything sinful or that could be considered sinful because they knew nothing of sin. When they became aware of it they were expected to keep God's commands concerning sin.

Quote from: Jason78 on June 21, 2017, 05:40:59 PM
Gamma rays kill plants.   And pretty much anything else.  (Alpha and beta radiation isn't even light.)

Light is just one aspect of the electromagnetic force which is just one of the four fundamental forces we know about.

Your not really good at concepts huh??

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 21, 2017, 07:57:05 PM
Notices Bible story overrelies on God magic and conflicts with science. Makes up story in attempt to reconcile the story with science. When confronted with science that conflicts with made up story, explains it with God magic. Dude, you're back to square one, and you're too thick to even realize it.

apples and oranges sport. the bible is not a text book, never meant to be . the bible at best is a map to find God. if you follow the map you will find God.

QuoteI mean, seriously. Did you really think that adding a few million years to the story to allow for evolution to happen would somehow fix everything?

For those who need to believe in both it absolutely does fix enough for belief/faith to follow the road map.

QuoteDid you really think that evolution was the only problem with the Biblical creation myth?

Evolution is simply the first which catches probably 40% of people/kids going to school.

QuoteIt's not. The Bible is in contradiction with virtually every branch of science, from medicine to psychology.

None of which concerns the majority of the people.

QuoteEvolution isn't even the main problem atheists have with the Bible.

didn't say it was. but it is the biggest problem young people have when transioning from a home inviroment to a school where they push evolution only propaganda. Now the kid going to school can have both in thier untouched form.

QuoteIt's Christians who make it so important, even going so far as to give those who know evolution is true a cute name: "Evolutionists." If the best you've got is this God of the gaps and God magic nonsense, you're wasting your time.

Unless, I know where to find God and have the ability to share it. think about it. if I and people like me know how to relyably direct people to God and they take away similar experiences and it profoundly changes their lives forever, then what is science but science of the gaps for nonbelievers? Or popular belief/popscience. Not that all of it is popular guessing. I work in a science based field and this science is what modern life is based on. not guess and unvalidatble theory, but real science we can bank on. The proble however is pop science and real scince are two different things that are being sold in our ministries of propaganda (universities) as being the same.

QuoteWe've had a lot of dense people here in the past, but you're the first I've encountered who actually claimed to have divine revelation, allowing you to rewrite scriptures.

I'm sorry, but where did I claim this? or is this an alt left tactic to name call and discredit? when will you d-bags learn we (like everyone) know your tactic now and just because you claim something to be true often times it is not. Like for instance I never claim to rewrite anything. Again my account leaves the bible and evolution completely untouched! All I do it take away the time line science and YEC put on the bible. Why? because the bible does not endorse or claim a time period between the end of creation and the fall of man. matter of fact there is a chaptorial break between the end of creation and the fall of man. What I am simply saying is 1 day or 18 billion years could have happened between chapter 2 and chapter 3. This leaves the saven days of creation untouched and it leave the pop science narrative of evolution complete untouched. So then how is it I am rewritting scripture?

Quote
Your head is so high up in the clouds, you make all the other idiots seem grounded and totally rational in comparison. Part of me still thinks this has to be a joke. You just have to be a troll. But I've had enough experience in church to know that, unfortunately, you're probably completely serious.

when you can't kill the message discredit the messenger cause that still works in the real world (that's why trump was not voted president.) Oh, wait a tick... Trump is president!! I guess this means you 90's personal/ad hoc BS has run it's course in the way of influencing a conversation, and people are looking for more than pop-belief you seem so bent on protecting with your very integrity. I mean why else stoop to attacking me personally when IF the message is flawed as you say attack the flaws in the message.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 22, 2017, 11:56:19 AM
Your not really good at concepts huh??

Neither are you.  Your version doesn't really matter.   The whole evolution/creation debate was settled decades ago.  Only evolution or something like it would explain the diversity of life we see.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 22, 2017, 11:52:18 AM
Read the OP

He did die that day. He adam was an immortal and God striped him of that life and gave him a new life where he could be hurt and injured and the earth would work against him and he would have to struggle to put food on the table. After being an immortal and walking hand in hand with God, Adam's 930 as a human was like a prison sentence.

"Yeah? Well I'm gonna make up some shit to cover my ass."

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 22, 2017, 12:22:08 PM

Quote from: Blackleaf
It's not. The Bible is in contradiction with virtually every branch of science, from medicine to psychology.

None of which concerns the majority of the people.

Since when does 'majority rule' determine scientific facts?

Quote from: Jason78 on June 22, 2017, 12:35:50 PM
Neither are you.  Your version doesn't really matter.   The whole evolution/creation debate was settled decades ago.  Only evolution or something like it would explain the diversity of life we see.

Glob..

Which is just fine and dandy with "my version of things."

For you see if you read and or understood what it was I am saying is that you can plug any verion of evolution or anything like that in the literal seven day creation account without changing a word of the bible nor will you have to change a word of evolution for both to work at the same time.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 22, 2017, 12:40:31 PM
"Yeah? Well I'm gonna make up some shit to cover my ass."

Kinda all right there in scripture.

Quote from: trdsf on June 22, 2017, 03:29:19 PM
None of which concerns the majority of the people.

Since when does 'majority rule' determine scientific facts?

Peer reviewed science doesn't ring a bell?

What is peer reviewed science? it is majority consensus of what the 'experts' in a given field wants it to be.

(now don't be obtuse or foolishly idealistic or I shall have some fun tearing down the idea of the purity of 'science' for the sake of science. when in fact science and scientists are whores to funding.) Cern, the Ozone Hole, Nasa durning bush: no global warming, nasa durning obama: "the sky is falling"\global warming.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 22, 2017, 11:54:54 AM
Because once you become aware of sin you are now responsible for it. It wasn't that Adam and eve were sin free. God simply did not hold them accountible to anything sinful or that could be considered sinful because they knew nothing of sin. When they became aware of it they were expected to keep God's commands concerning sin.

You're pulling this explanation out of your anus. The reason for why God was upset was given within the same story. It was not because of sin. Sin was never even mentioned. The reason God decided to remove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden was because he was afraid that if they ate the Fruit of the Tree of Life, they would become immortal and have taken another step toward becoming gods. God removed them from the garden because he was afraid that if he didn't, he and the other gods wouldn't be able to control them any more.

Genesis 3:22 - "And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'"

It is only through the reinterpretations that later books brought to this story that the idea that God separated himself from man because of sin was even introduced.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 22, 2017, 03:34:58 PM
Kinda all right there in scripture.

Kinda out of your ass.

The Sumerians said that we were created by the Annunaki to dig up gold... that storyline makes a little more sense than the one you are sharing

Maybe Drich should slow down a little bit and what you are trying to say will make more sense. Its obvious from how many mispelled words in your post that you are rushing to get it all our.

I will agree with you on this one point, because I thought of it myself a long time ago. The Bible doesn't specifically tell us the age of the earth, that is a guess made by theologists. Yes there can be a space of millions of years between the creation and the fall (no reason to measure time before Adam sinned)

Its possible but I don't have any proof that actually happened and neither do you. Certainly the division of chapter and verse can't be used to prove anything. Chapters were added in English. They weren't part of the original language.

Your idea has one obvious flaw. You said that Adam was the ancestor of all the stupid ape-men of evolution and he didnt have kids until 6,000 years ago so that he could become more intelligent? If it was possible for someone to live for millions of years his DNA would stay the same. If he was a dumb-ass a million years ago his children would still be dumbasses today

You're making a really good argument against god being omniscient. If he had to waste millions of
years to get man the way he wanted...

Quote from: fencerider on June 23, 2017, 01:24:41 AMI will agree with you on this one point, because I thought of it myself a long time ago. The Bible doesn't specifically tell us the age of the earth, that is a guess made by theologists. Yes there can be a space of millions of years between the creation and the fall (no reason to measure time before Adam sinned)

Well, in the passage I quoted in my last post, it seems heavily implied that Adam and Eve never ate from the Tree of Life, which would have made them "live forever." From what the story tells us, it seems the very first time Adam got hungry, he ate the one fruit God told him not to instead of the fruit of Tree of Life which was available and not forbidden. That likely didn't take the time span of millions of years to happen.

There's something else I just realized too. If God was concerned about Adam becoming immortal, that heavily implies that he wasn't immortal to begin with. So not only did God lie about the forbidden fruit causing him to die on the same day it was consumed, but Adam was probably going to die eventually anyway. The fruit didn't even curse him with mortality. It had no negative consequences other than the realization of nakedness, and causing God to get nervous.

Wow, Drich150 is like Barach, only very extremely uneducated and way more verbose!  I hope he gets bored here quickly.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 23, 2017, 03:31:47 AM
Wow, Drich150 is like Barach, only very extremely uneducated and way more verbose!  I hope he gets bored here quickly.

He's already recycling old posts from elsewhere.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 22, 2017, 05:41:30 PM
You're pulling this explanation out of your anus.

what are you a catholic priest? have you never read the bible? after salvation the whole of the New Testament is about being judged to the measure of what it is you understand. romans 5 gives a specific overview concerning Adam and the nature of sin.

QuoteThe reason for why God was upset was given within the same story. It was not because of sin. Sin was never even mentioned. The reason God decided to remove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden was because he was afraid that if they ate the Fruit of the Tree of Life, they would become immortal and have taken another step toward becoming gods. God removed them from the garden because he was afraid that if he didn't, he and the other gods wouldn't be able to control them any more.

nice try but no.
verse 20 tells us why Adam and Eve were to leave. In that they were going to have a bunch of kids. Can you imagine how destructive it would be to have a pack of immortal siblings trying to kill each other.

Quote
It is only through the reinterpretations that later books brought to this story that the idea that God separated himself from man because of sin was even introduced.

are you retarded?
verse 14 to 19 is all about the sin

Quote from: Cavebear on June 23, 2017, 03:31:47 AM
Wow, Drich150 is like Barach, only very extremely uneducated and way more verbose!  I hope he gets bored here quickly.

It's unfair to compare Baruch with Drich. They only have one thing in common: they are both religious. Baruch actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Biblical interpretation, which is probably why he doesn't believe in it. When Baruch writes something, I pay attention. When Drich writes something, my eyes roll back so far, I can see my own brain.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 23, 2017, 10:04:13 AM
It's unfair to compare Baruch with Drich. They only have one thing in common: they are both religious. Baruch actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Biblical interpretation, which is probably why he doesn't believe in it. When Baruch writes something, I pay attention. When Drich writes something, my eyes roll back so far, I can see my own brain.

I don't speak Baruchistani.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 09:25:55 AM
what are you a catholic priest? have you never read the bible? after salvation the whole of the New Testament is about being judged to the measure of what it is you understand. romans 5 gives a specific overview concerning Adam and the nature of sin.

How many years did it take after Genesis being written for the New Testament to come around and reinterpret it? I don't give a fuck. It contradicts what the original source says. Christians didn't take Judaism and add to it; they practically threw Judaism into the trash and made up their own shit.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 09:25:55 AMnice try but no.

"Nice try, but what your saying doesn't align with my preconceived notions about what the story means, so it must be wrong."

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 09:25:55 AMverse 20 tells us why Adam and Eve were to leave. In that they were going to have a bunch of kids. Can you imagine how destructive it would be to have a pack of immortal siblings trying to kill each other.
are you retarded?

(https://sc.mogicons.com/share/middle-finger-131.jpg)

I don't care what explanations you pull out of your ass. And your attempts to talk down to me just make you look really pathetic.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 09:25:55 AMverse 14 to 19 is all about the sin

There is not ONE mention of sin in that whole chunk of text. You are putting your own meaning into it, which is the only thing you've done in this thread.

Quote from: fencerider on June 23, 2017, 01:24:41 AM
The Sumerians said that we were created by the Annunaki to dig up gold... that storyline makes a little more sense than the one you are sharing

than what? there is no time line between genesis 2 and genesis 3? that genesis 3 could be the beginning of day 8 or it could be 18 billion years later?

Maybe Drich should slow down a little bit and what you are trying to say will make more sense. Its obvious from how many mispelled words in your post that you are rushing to get it all our.

QuoteI will agree with you on this one point, because I thought of it myself a long time ago. The Bible doesn't specifically tell us the age of the earth, that is a guess made by theologists. Yes there can be a space of millions of years between the creation and the fall (no reason to measure time before Adam sinned)

that is really the core of what I've said over and over. Theologists simply counted back the generations back to the first born of Adam and that plus adam's 930 on earth simply indicate the exit date of the garden. The persumption has always been that the sin that cause the fall happened shortly after creation was completed. but again nothing in the bible says that. the bible does however say per gen 2 that the garden was made separate from the rest of the world and that Adam was made on day three while man outside the garden per gen 1 was day 6. So we know we have a picture of the world captured in the garden that reflected man's evolution upto 6000 years ago. which again was the time of the exodus of the garden. and we have in gen 1 man made outside the garden and in gen 2 man made inside the garden God called adam.

Quote
Its possible but I don't have any proof that actually happened and neither do you. Certainly the division of chapter and verse can't be used to prove anything. Chapters were added in English. They weren't part of the original language.

indeed.

QuoteYour idea has one obvious flaw. You said that Adam was the ancestor of all the stupid ape-men of evolution and he didnt have kids until 6,000 years ago so that he could become more intelligent?

nope nope nope.

Adam was a man whom God personally made and breathed into Him a soul per genesis2 and placed him in the garden of eden

Then Man made outside the garden was made in God's image. meaning not stupid, but Homo sapeians. Nothing stupid about them as they built the cities of nod where Cain ran off too. they per gen 1 we placed in the world to develop apart from Adam. The garden was a bubble made on day 3 sometime between the other things God made on day three.

QuoteIf it was possible for someone to live for millions of years his DNA would stay the same. If he was a dumb-ass a million years ago his children would still be dumbasses today

ignorance is not genetic it is simply a lack of understanding.

Quote
You're making a really good argument against god being omniscient. If he had to waste millions of
years to get man the way he wanted...

Did he have to?? where does it say that? just because you would do something differently does not mean God has to. I think his power was displayed well in the creation of the garden and everything in it between his day three tasks, per gen 2

Besides that. know the God of the bible does not claim to be an omni max God. His description of Himself says He is the alpha and omega the beginning and endof all things. which means he has the power and authority to do whatever he likes and is not bound to the rule that an omni max God would be.

Still trolling.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 22, 2017, 03:43:19 PM
Peer reviewed science doesn't ring a bell?

What is peer reviewed science? it is majority consensus of what the 'experts' in a given field wants it to be.

(now don't be obtuse or foolishly idealistic or I shall have some fun tearing down the idea of the purity of 'science' for the sake of science. when in fact science and scientists are whores to funding.) Cern, the Ozone Hole, Nasa durning bush: no global warming, nasa durning obama: "the sky is falling"\global warming.

Wow, that's about as complete a misunderstanding of the scientific process as is possible to have.

It's not about who can put together a majority consensus.  It's about who's got the confirmable data and a falsifiable hypothesis to explain it that has not (yet) been falsified.  You think the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe was decided by majority vote?  There was considerable resistance to the idea because it was contrary to the then-accepted explanation of the way the universe is.  And then the data got researched and confirmed.  Now it's the accepted idea -- not because a majority of astrophysicists "voted" for it so to speak, but because the data supports it.  Scientists don't line up behind something just because everyone else does.

And if you want to talk about whores to money (I didn't bring it up, but thanks for the non sequitur, it's another point I can use), are you genuinely unfamiliar with Vatican City?  Have you really never heard of Rick Warren, PTL, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, etc., etc., etc.?

At least a scientist has a chance to produce something useful with their money.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7JvcUXX0AASQdZ.jpg)

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 23, 2017, 10:04:13 AM
It's unfair to compare Baruch with Drich. They only have one thing in common: they are both religious. Baruch actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Biblical interpretation, which is probably why he doesn't believe in it. When Baruch writes something, I pay attention. When Drich writes something, my eyes roll back so far, I can see my own brain.

" ... I can see my own brain." ... so don't hold back ... is it still there? ;-)

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 23, 2017, 10:09:45 AM
I don't speak Baruchistani.

Praise Kek!  Pepe died for your memes!!

This place always makes me think of the scene from the first Planet Of The Apes ... where the various simians (gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees) are jumping up and down making excited monkey noises, but are in a class/race/species division ... they aren't all on the same drum.

Quote from: trdsf on June 23, 2017, 11:21:20 AM
Wow, that's about as complete a misunderstanding of the scientific process as is possible to have.

It's not about who can put together a majority consensus.  It's about who's got the confirmable data and a falsifiable hypothesis to explain it that has not (yet) been falsified.  You think the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe was decided by majority vote?  There was considerable resistance to the idea because it was contrary to the then-accepted explanation of the way the universe is.  And then the data got researched and confirmed.  Now it's the accepted idea -- not because a majority of astrophysicists "voted" for it so to speak, but because the data supports it.  Scientists don't line up behind something just because everyone else does.

And if you want to talk about whores to money (I didn't bring it up, but thanks for the non sequitur, it's another point I can use), are you genuinely unfamiliar with Vatican City?  Have you really never heard of Rick Warren, PTL, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, etc., etc., etc.?

At least a scientist has a chance to produce something useful with their money.

There are sociological theories of physics ... our poster might be thinking that physics and sociology aren't so far apart ...

1984 Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Pickering, Andrew Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

More recently skim this ...

https://culanth.org/articles/747-ethnography-and-theory-of-the-signature-in-physics

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 23, 2017, 03:00:22 AM
Well, in the passage I quoted in my last post, it seems heavily implied that Adam and Eve never ate from the Tree of Life, which would have made them "live forever." From what the story tells us, it seems the very first time Adam got hungry, he ate the one fruit God told him not to instead of the fruit of Tree of Life which was available and not forbidden. That likely didn't take the time span of millions of years to happen.

lol... no

Genesis2:2 The woman answered the snake, “No, we can eat fruit from the trees in the garden. 3 But there is one tree we must not eat from. God told us, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden. You must not even touch that tree, or you will die.’”

This would have included the tree of life. (meaning what they could eat from.) Take note they could eat from any tree no where in the bible does it say this was the first time adam got hungry.
So then the question would be why is this forbidden fruit so tempting? it wouldn't be if the Garden was full of vast unknown edibles and mysteries!
unless 18 billion years go by and even in a place as vast as 2/3 of north america and you had to see it all on foot, youve seen everything, ate everything and now you are bored. Which would explain eve's proxcimity to the forbidden fruit to begin with.. as it was the only thing left in all of the garden that was till a mystery still interesting!

QuoteThere's something else I just realized too. If God was concerned about Adam becoming immortal, that heavily implies that he wasn't immortal to begin with.

Unless like he said He died when he ate the fruit. meaning Adam the immortal died and God gave him this life "chay" as per the OP. Adam lived a completely different existence in the beginning with God ate the forbidden fruit and died, and God did not want Him to be immortal again so He kicked him from the garden.

Quote
So not only did God lie about the forbidden fruit causing him to die on the same day it was consumed, but Adam was probably going to die eventually anyway. The fruit didn't even curse him with mortality. It had no negative consequences other than the realization of nakedness, and causing God to get nervous.

Do you see how you have to change the bible's account to make your telling of the fall work? just because you want to insist that adam is mortal in the garden you have to make God a liar, you have to claim adam was slated to die in the garden even if he has not sin (which the bible never makes mention of) and the tree of knowledge was not the first sin..

All of those statement are false the bible never made those claims or in the case of sin makes the opposite claim, but that doesn't matter to you does it?

It does not matter that in my telling everying for one in the telling of the genesis orgins all the so call paradoxes or 'lies' go away.

For one if Adam is indeed immortal then he dies that very day as an immortal when he eats the fruit.
now we do not have to make the claim you did that adam was slated to die in the garden.
and we can jive with gen3 when eve said they were permitted to eat from the tree of life.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 23, 2017, 03:31:47 AM
Wow, Drich150 is like Barach, only very extremely uneducated and way more verbose!  I hope he gets bored here quickly.

examples???

Quote from: trdsf on June 23, 2017, 11:21:20 AM
Wow, that's about as complete a misunderstanding of the scientific process as is possible to have.

you mean to say that is the 'undoctrinated view?'

QuoteIt's not about who can put together a majority consensus.  It's about who's got the confirmable data and a falsifiable hypothesis to explain it that has not (yet) been falsified.

That's not always true is it. let's look at global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean globa climbate change. This 25 year old consensus in places literally contradicts 500 years of traditional science discovery and recorded temperature cycles. more over it out right contradicts principles in thermal dynamics that can not be reconciled with the 'science' being used. In short carbon in the atmosphere is one of several atoms that can "unpack" or release heat from a "sun ray" However there is a point of saturation where more carbon doesn't mean more heat is created in the same beam of sunlight. Remember/google it Carbon effectively only "unpacks" the available heat it can not produce more heat. The only thing that can proudce more heat in a ray of sunlight is the sun. meaning only the sun can put in more sunligh for the carbon atoms to unpack..

So here's the thing 500 years of science concerning global climate change has been telling us it is solar output that determines the earth median tempature Not green house gas.

So if you were right and your neive understanding of science was not driven by pop culture then we would still be adhearing to the 500 year old stuff they taught me when i was in school. but they don't do they? that must mean science is a whore selling it's legitmacy to whatever popular peer review wants it to say.

QuoteYou think the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe was decided by majority vote?  There was considerable resistance to the idea because it was contrary to the then-accepted explanation of the way the universe is.  And then the data got researched and confirmed.  Now it's the accepted idea -- not because a majority of astrophysicists "voted" for it so to speak, but because the data supports it.  Scientists don't line up behind something just because everyone else does.

Your just aking my point for me... Expanding universe was laughed out of legitmacy till enough scientist got on board with the idea.

Quote
And if you want to talk about whores to money (I didn't bring it up, but thanks for the non sequitur, it's another point I can use), are you genuinely unfamiliar with Vatican City?  Have you really never heard of Rick Warren, PTL, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, etc., etc., etc.?

At least a scientist has a chance to produce something useful with their money.

I've heard of NASA and it's view while bush was funding the program and I heard it's view while obama was funding it's program and we will see what NASA has to say when it's budget is announced by this administration. or did you miss that the first time around?

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 23, 2017, 10:04:13 AM
It's unfair to compare Baruch with Drich. They only have one thing in common: they are both religious. Baruch actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Biblical interpretation, which is probably why he doesn't believe in it. When Baruch writes something, I pay attention. When Drich writes something, my eyes roll back so far, I can see my own brain.

IDK kinda missed the boat on what the holy Spirit looks like and what the bible describes as a Christ like follower.

What Adam and Eve.  The first chapter of genesis tells us:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I don't see an Adam or Eve there.  And who is this 'them'???

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 22, 2017, 03:34:03 PM
Which is just fine and dandy with "my version of things."

For you see if you read and or understood what it was I am saying is that you can plug any verion of evolution or anything like that in the literal seven day creation account without changing a word of the bible nor will you have to change a word of evolution for both to work at the same time.

No.  It isn't.


You don't even understand what it is you're trying to smoosh together from either a theological point of view or a scientific one.   The scientific concepts that you're trying to use have an actual basis in fact and reality.  And they directly contradict what is said in Genesis no matter how you try and interpret it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 23, 2017, 02:27:21 PM
What Adam and Eve.  The first chapter of genesis tells us:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I don't see an Adam or Eve there.  And who is this 'them'???

Holy crap dude. why argue a point you haven't taken the time to understand? why not ask questions first?

Genesis 1:1-Gen 2:3 should all be in one chapter as this describes the 7 days of creation. This is 7 day of global creation (not including the garden) how do I know? because Genesis 2:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So basically between verse 10 and verse 11 all of chapter 2 happens. what happens in chapter 2 read it yourself:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=ERV

but basically Adam was created, the garden, and eve. all between verse 10 and 11 of day 3.  That means the garden and everyone in it was seperate from the rest of creation. that includes "man and woman" created on day 6. I am saying day 6 man was evolved man or monkey man. no different than Adam, it just adam was a homo sapeian first. and it took however long you guys said it did for man outside the garden created on day 6 to catch up to day 3 adam.

Quote from: Jason78 on June 23, 2017, 02:50:05 PM
No.  It isn't.


You don't even understand what it is you're trying to smoosh together from either a theological point of view or a scientific one.   The scientific concepts that you're trying to use have an actual basis in fact and reality.  And they directly contradict what is said in Genesis no matter how you try and interpret it.

no they don't.

or rather explain how you think my theory changes anything genesis or evolution says. Or if you do nt understand my arguement I can explain how it doesn't change anything.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 04:13:14 PM
Holy crap dude. why argue a point you haven't taken the time to understand? why not ask questions first?

Genesis 1:1-Gen 2:3 should all be in one chapter as this describes the 7 days of creation. This is 7 day of global creation (not including the garden) how do I know? because Genesis 2:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So basically between verse 10 and verse 11 all of chapter 2 happens. what happens in chapter 2 read it yourself:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=ERV

but basically Adam was created, the garden, and eve. all between verse 10 and 11 of day 3.  That means the garden and everyone in it was seperate from the rest of creation. that includes "man and woman" created on day 6. I am saying day 6 man was evolved man or monkey man. no different than Adam, it just adam was a homo sapeian first. and it took however long you guys said it did for man outside the garden created on day 6 to catch up to day 3 adam.

Holy crap dude, can't you read?  You believe you come up with any old interpretation you want.  And I guess you can.  But it makes no sense.  But then, your precious bible makes no sense, either.  Your interpretations are as vapid and stupid as your god and your book.  You call this stupid, empty shit 'understanding'.  Yeah, I understand you are crazier than the fucking proverbial loon.  But you are a theist, so that fits. 

Yeah, I've read the bible from cover to cover.  And in the first and second chapters of the very beginning of this fiction, it makes it clear this is a fiction that is at war with itself.  You can prove just about anything you want--and you prove that--simply by making the words say what you want them to say.  Clearly, Chpt. 1 is about 'them' (the gods I guess) creating humans (clearly men and women were created at the same time and equal) and 'them' pronounced it good.  Chpt 2 is about the creation of man--adam--who was lonely (funny how god could not figure that out in advance) and so god created eve from adam's rib (why he would need a rib when he did not need one with adam is puzzling) and then the garden.  Two totally different creation myths.  Neither of which makes much sense and there is not way to make them fit as a single unit or myth; except in the muddled mind of theists like you.  But I have to hand it to you--your interpretation is unique; and very stupid--which is not unique for theists.  God you are stupid--but you seem to be enjoying it so have at it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 23, 2017, 02:27:21 PM
What Adam and Eve.  The first chapter of genesis tells us:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I don't see an Adam or Eve there.  And who is this 'them'???

Biblical exegesis isn't your thing ;-)  Gotta get to the original Hebrew!  Bereshit 1:27 is key for me!

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 04:13:14 PM


Genesis 1:1-Gen 2:3 should all be in one chapter as this describes the 7 days of creation. This is 7 day of global creation (not including the garden)

Kinda skips over the part where it claims the sky is water....I won't call you a dumb ass, but I will say that people who believe that shit are dumb asses.

Quote from: aitm on June 23, 2017, 07:52:25 PM
Kinda skips over the part where it claims the sky is water....I won't call you a dumb ass, but I will say that people who believe that shit are dumb asses.

Drich's in luck then, he doesn't believe a fucking word he says.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 01:40:10 PM
you mean to say that is the 'undoctrinated view?'

And right here is the precise reason you're now in my twitfilter.

Not that I expected any better, considering your go-to when you can't refute a point or answer a question is to start namecalling (I spotted 'moron', 'retard' and 'douche').  But, I gave you your fair chance, and you peed it down your leg.

Based on the evidence that you can not reliably spell nor produce grammatically correct sentences, that you assert contradictions -- the most glaring being stating that the bible isn't a text book (one of the few true things you've said; I assume that was accidental) and then attempting to use it as one -- and the aforementioned ad hominems, I have data to suggest that you are illiterate, ignorant, and unpleasant.

And, also, ignored.  Enjoy your ego masturbation.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 04:13:14 PMGenesis 1:1-Gen 2:3 should all be in one chapter as this describes the 7 days of creation. This is 7 day of global creation (not including the garden) how do I know? because Genesis 2:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth.

"How do I know?  The Bible says..."

What an impressive epistemology.

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 24, 2017, 09:05:21 PM
"How do I know?  The Bible says..."

What an impressive epistemology.

Drich never was a good troll.

peer review science: when a scientist makes a claim other scientists will check the work for mistakes. The scientist better be right because a bogus claim could mean the end of that scientist's career. ...what does that have to do with a scientist sucking up for funding?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 01:40:10 PM
let's look at global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean globa climbate change. This 25 year old consensus in places literally contradicts 500 years of traditional science discovery and recorded temperature cycles. more over it out right contradicts principles in thermal dynamics that can not be reconciled with the 'science' being used. In short carbon in the atmosphere is one of several atoms that can "unpack" or release heat from a "sun ray" However there is a point of saturation where more carbon doesn't mean more heat is created in the same beam of sunlight. Remember/google it Carbon effectively only "unpacks" the available heat it can not produce more heat. The only thing that can proudce more heat in a ray of sunlight is the sun. meaning only the sun can put in more sunligh for the carbon atoms to unpack..

So here's the thing 500 years of science concerning global climate change has been telling us it is solar output that determines the earth median tempature Not green house gas.

Apparently nobody explained global warming to you.... The short version is that normally light from the sun comes in the atmosphere and bounces off the earth back into space. Pollution in the air gives light a place to bounce back to earth for a second, third, or fourth time. This increases UV exposure increasing sunburn and skin cancer. As for carbon dioxide, light comes in at a frequency where carbon dioxide is transparent. When it hits the earth some energy is absorbed that changes the frequency of the light to a frequency where carbon dioxide is opaque. So instead of the light-energy going back into space it gets trapped in the air

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 23, 2017, 02:27:21 PM
What Adam and Eve.  The first chapter of genesis tells us:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I don't see an Adam or Eve there.  And who is this 'them'???

AGAIN!

Chapter one is evolved man outside of the garden.

Chapter two speaks of adam and eve created on day 4 and placed in the garden...

Why is this so difficult?

Chapter 1 tell of the sevn day creation (upto gen 2:3)

Then Gen 2:4 forward talks about just what happened on day three which besides what is mentioned in chapter one The garden is created and everything in it. which means Adam and Eve which were Day three (God breathed a living soul into them) verse day 6 made in the image of God humans.

Quote from: Jason78 on June 23, 2017, 02:50:05 PM
No.  It isn't.


You don't even understand what it is you're trying to smoosh together from either a theological point of view or a scientific one.   The scientific concepts that you're trying to use have an actual basis in fact and reality.  And they directly contradict what is said in Genesis no matter how you try and interpret it.

That's not true...

Once you understand what i have said in the OP Everything science will ever have to say about creation will neatly fit inside the creation account found in genesis.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 23, 2017, 05:28:17 PM
Holy crap dude, can't you read?  You believe you come up with any old interpretation you want.  And I guess you can.  But it makes no sense.  But then, your precious bible makes no sense, either.  Your interpretations are as vapid and stupid as your god and your book.  You call this stupid, empty shit 'understanding'.  Yeah, I understand you are crazier than the fucking proverbial loon.  But you are a theist, so that fits. 

Yeah, I've read the bible from cover to cover.

goes to show what you know, but I'll allow it for the sake of discussion.

QuoteAnd in the first and second chapters of the very beginning of this fiction, it makes it clear this is a fiction that is at war with itself.

the only thing made clear is you rely heavily if not completely upon commentary for your biblical discernment.

The first and second chapters could never be more clear. Chapter one is a telling of the 7 days of creation

Chapter 2

Quote:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky.

So that would be according to gen 1 DAY 3!

Quote5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

so the first part of day three right after God seperated land from water but before there was plants...

That means EVERYTHING in Gene 2 happened on day three starting at the point where God made dry land but before plants were called fourth, and places it all in the garden. Which shows the Garden is seperate from the rest of the 7 day creation.

Now Ask a frigging question if you do not understand all of that.

Quote
You can prove just about anything you want--and you prove that--simply by making the words say what you want them to say.

Actually I can and I did through providing context and context found in every version of Genesis 2. Remember if we are having an avengers dicussion then it is from the marvel universe we must source 'proof' You can't just willy nilly float back and fourth when ever you start to loose footing in your discussion.

QuoteClearly, Chpt. 1 is about 'them' (the gods I guess) creating humans (clearly men and women were created at the same time and equal) and 'them' pronounced it good.  Chpt 2 is about the creation of man--adam--who was lonely (funny how god could not figure that out in advance) and so god created eve from adam's rib (why he would need a rib when he did not need one with adam is puzzling) and then the garden.  Two totally different creation myths.

Nope. one creation story found in Gen 1-Gen2:3 in that block of scripture you find your 7 days of creation. from 2:4 forward you have the garden account that all happened on day 3.

QuoteNeither of which makes much sense and there is not way to make them fit as a single unit or myth; except in the muddled mind of theists like you.

that is because you are trying to filter what it is I am saying through the B/S commentaries you think have the best shot at being true. The problem? your 'theologiests" in real life who compile such commentaries are little more than disenfranchised seminary want-to-bes. The are so wrong because they do not look at the context to resolve what they do not understand they cast off common sense and look for anyother reason to 'explain' why they don't understand something. like the SAB's "two creation account explaination. when all you gotta do is read what is on page and it tells you itself that All of chapter two from 2:4 forward happens on just day three and is contained only in the Garden. It is not another creation account.

Quote
But I have to hand it to you--your interpretation is unique; and very stupid--which is not unique for theists.  God you are stupid--but you seem to be enjoying it so have at it.

so what happens when you finally figure out that it is not I who is in error but your commentators???

Lets do this another way what does Genesis 4-5 mean?
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants...

These two verses are key to understanding the whole and energetically correct meaning of Genesis chapter 2 here's a hint I've spelled it out like a dozen times already

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 26, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
AGAIN!

Chapter one is evolved man outside of the garden.

Chapter two speaks of adam and eve created on day 4 and placed in the garden...

Why is this so difficult?

Chapter 1 tell of the sevn day creation (upto gen 2:3)

Then Gen 2:4 forward talks about just what happened on day three which besides what is mentioned in chapter one The garden is created and everything in it. which means Adam and Eve which were Day three (God breathed a living soul into them) verse day 6 made in the image of God humans.

AGAIN!!  Why is this so difficult?  Because your beliefs are unique to you.  And those unique beliefs go against what is actually written.  Because your beliefs follow no logic.  But, then the bible is fiction and your god is fiction, so I guess you can come up with any old belief and it will not be any more stupid, banal or idiotic than any other belief based upon fiction.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 26, 2017, 11:42:12 AM
AGAIN!!  Why is this so difficult?  Because your beliefs are unique to you.  And those unique beliefs go against what is actually written.  Because your beliefs follow no logic.  But, then the bible is fiction and your god is fiction, so I guess you can come up with any old belief and it will not be any more stupid, banal or idiotic than any other belief based upon fiction.

Seriously??? are you so hung up on your commentaries you can not read what is on page and think for your self? what is it? it is too obvious? does my reading make your trusted sources look too dumb? Can it be as simple as taking the words on page at face value? why didn't your 'smarties" catch any of this?

Because God hides himself from the foolishness of man's "higher learning" Again read what is on page, the fact that day seven has been made to be apart of Genesis 2 makes you see that even the guys denoting book chapter and verse got this one wrong. They were making the narrative of the passage fit the popular reading of the day rather than follow the chronological events written on page.



Genesis 1:1- Genesis 2:3 describes chronologically from day one to day seven how God built the "heavens and the Earth." Do you disagree with this?

then 2:4 should technically be Genesis 2:1. It's not because it does not support the traditional reading of Genesis 2. If genesis 2 started out:
This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. (earth and sky was day 2)  This was before there were plants on the earth. (plants was day 3)  Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants. (So this means the following takes places after earth and sky/day 2 and even sea and ground/day3 but before the rain day three between verse 10 and 11)

That means everything after gen 2:5 happened in the time frame gen 2:4-5 describes. which if you read what is on page you will note this/gen2 is a garden only narrative that happens apart from the outside world. That means both adam and eve were created on the 3rd day and not the 6th, which puts an end to the bad commentative idea that (genesis 1 and 2 are at war with each other.) a simple contextual reading is all anyone ever needed to put that myth to bed.

Riddle me this sport... if your hero's are so wrong about how genesis 1 and 2 are compiled then what chance in hell do they have anything else right? What about the important stuff?

Not too bad for a 'waking dream huh?' it smashes all sorts of genesis paradoxes without even setting out to do so. it's like all of these paradoxes fall once a contextual reading replaces the old 'church's traditional reading.

the babble tells us the sky is water and that 2/3rds of all the stars have fallen to the earth.  Psst...genius....shit ain't true. Get a grip and read a real book.

its a real book... just a choose your own adventure mystery book.

-the sons of god saw the creation of the world, the sons of god got turned on by earth women, the sons of god are not angels... never says who they are
-tells us there were giants before and after the flood doesnt tell us where they came from either
-tells us Adam and Eve walked with god in the garden and the Jesus says no man has ever seen god

I dont really like choose your own adventure that much. I'd prefer the cut and dried approach of a real book like Harry Potter

Some people think we were made from dirt so that they don't have to act any smarter than a how wallow.

Right, and being made from dirt is much better than being made from apes...

Quote from: aitm on June 26, 2017, 01:56:05 PM
the babble tells us the sky is water and that 2/3rds of all the stars have fallen to the earth.  Psst...genius....shit ain't true. Get a grip and read a real book.

book chapter verse pleaja

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/63/56/8b/63568b4569edf52a0e9d12601520f869.jpg)

Quote from: fencerider on June 26, 2017, 02:27:11 PM
its a real book... just a choose your own adventure mystery book.

-the sons of god saw the creation of the world,
[angels]
the sons of god got turned on by earth women, the sons of god are not angels...
[ yes, angels]

Quotenever says who they are

Job 1:6, 2:1 38:37.. The bible clearly states the sun of God are angels sport good or bad.

Quote-tells us there were giants before

they were the off spring/babies of the demons and women.

Quoteand after the flood

cause they died in the water. that is what the flood was about to cleans the earth of those things.

Quotedoesnt tell us where they came from either

no, it kinda does

Quote-tells us Adam and Eve walked with god in the garden and the Jesus says no man has ever seen god

book chapter and verse please

Quote
I dont really like choose your own adventure that much. I'd prefer the cut and dried approach of a real book like Harry Potter

Doesn't seem you much of a reader anyway.

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 26, 2017, 03:40:28 PM
Right, and being made from dirt is much better than being made from apes...

oh you mean carbon.. in your world 'apes' aren't made of carbon?

Shut the fuck up.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 26, 2017, 04:48:28 PM
oh you mean carbon.. in your world 'apes' aren't made of carbon?

How the fuck did you get "carbon" from "dirt". Are you proud of being a lying sack of shit?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 26, 2017, 04:30:26 PM
book chapter verse pleaja

that's what I thought... we know the babble better than you do. Read up boy, you just flunked.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 26, 2017, 03:14:52 PM
Some people think we were made from dirt so that they don't have to act any smarter than a how wallow.

For Muslims, "adam" means clot of blood ... which is more original I think than the clod of earth version.  For the Greeks, Prometheus made the first man from clay ... as did the S Egyptian god Khnum.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 26, 2017, 04:46:03 PM
Job 1:6, 2:1 38:37.. The bible clearly states the sun of God are angels sport good or bad.

Ha! and you say there are no contradictions in the Bible. Hebrews 1:5 says that god never called an angel his son

You been talking about Genesis 1 and 2 all this time and never noticed the sky above the stars is supposed to be water?

Since you like to pick so much, I will submit to you according to the rules of English grammar the KJV says that the sons of god sleeping with earth women happened concurrently with the existence of giants. It does not say that is the cause of giants. Yes those giants were drowned in the flood, but what about the giants after the flood?

I don't have space for a big book shelf but I have 150-200 books on various subjects and I read all of them. I've also read many more books from the library. ( just to play devil's advocate the first book called Enoch and the book of Jabed? both say the watchers did it. They had giant babies before and after the flood)

Quote from: aitm on June 26, 2017, 05:43:19 PM
that's what I thought... we know the babble better than you do. Read up boy, you just flunked.

Or you don't, and you are making crap up as you go.

I am asking for proof of your statement. if you can not provide a quotation or citation when representing any written work you are in violation of rule 11.

Soooo book chapter and verse please

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 27, 2017, 08:36:07 AM
Or you don't, and you are making crap up as you go.

And you're Patient Zero.

Quote from: fencerider on June 27, 2017, 01:49:02 AM
Ha! and you say there are no contradictions in the Bible. Hebrews 1:5 says that god never called an angel his son

you know if the bible were writting in english you'd almost have a point, as it is you fail on just three points.
1 in the book of Job God is not calling angels his sons.
2 The sons of God's is simply the hebrew term for any celestial being inservice to God the word used in Hebrew is " ben " and it literally means angel as it relates to God.
3 the word Son in Hebrews 1 is the word huios which means of those in whom God has a covenant with.

So Job is right, and so too is the book of hebrews and no contradiction exists, because God did not call the people in Job 'sons' the writer of job did, and in Hebrews God has no covenant with the angels.

QuoteYou been talking about Genesis 1 and 2 all this time and never noticed the sky above the stars is supposed to be water?

book chapter and verse please.

QuoteSince you like to pick so much, I will submit to you according to the rules of English grammar the KJV says that the sons of god sleeping with earth women happened concurrently with the existence of giants. It does not say that is the cause of giants. Yes those giants were drowned in the flood, but what about the giants after the flood?

If you look at the Hebrew it says:
The original giants were nephilim a class of giant warrior angels/demons. (if you are jewish or catholic)
Then if you keep reading to verse 4 it says the off spring of the sons of God and the daughters of men were men of "mighty men of old." the word for old in the hebrew here mean immortal men. The Hebrew translation of mighty men also describes giants. So the hybrids were immortal giants. I like to think this is where Greeks get their stories and gods.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/6/1/t_conc_6004

Quote
I don't have space for a big book shelf but I have 150-200 books on various subjects and I read all of them. I've also read many more books from the library. ( just to play devil's advocate the first book called Enoch and the book of Jabed? both say the watchers did it. They had giant babies before and after the flood)

So? Again as I learned and shared the Nephilim were/are giants and so too where the off spring.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 27, 2017, 09:10:51 AM

So? Again as I learned and shared the Nephilim were/are giants and so too where the off spring.

Yes, as we all know, Donald Duck had three sons.  And they are off fighting the Beagle Boys gang.  And they are based in New York.  That is just common knowledge much as the Nephilim as giants are real. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 27, 2017, 10:50:20 AM
Yes, as we all know, Donald Duck had three sons.  And they are off fighting the Beagle Boys gang.  And they are based in New York.  That is just common knowledge much as the Nephilim as giants are real. 

Hewey, Dewey and Louie were Donald's nephews. People yelled at me for calling them illegitimate, and Daisy stopped giving me quack jobs.

look sport, tigger asked a question that was his answer. If you don't like those questions and or cant follow the reference material then maybe you should ask questions geared more to your level of understanding... Know, that not everything I say is meant for your consumption/I expect nor always want a response from you.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 27, 2017, 12:33:57 PM
look sport, tigger asked a question that was his answer. If you don't like those questions and or cant follow the reference material then maybe you should ask questions geared more to your level of understanding... Know, that not everything I say is meant for your consumption/I expect nor always want a response from you.

I just like pissing on you.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 27, 2017, 12:32:55 PM
Hewey, Dewey and Louie were Donald's nephews. People yelled at me for calling them illegitimate, and Daisy stopped giving me quack jobs.

That's right--nephews. But they are still chasing those nasty Beagle Boys.  If you don't believe me, go look them up in Gotham City.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 27, 2017, 12:54:42 PM
I just like pissing on you.

If I were speaking to you I would have said hobbs was asking a question not tigger.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 27, 2017, 04:17:58 PM
If I were speaking to you I would have said hobbs was asking a question not tigger.

And you're incoherent as usual. Why are you wasting pixels?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 27, 2017, 08:36:07 AM

I am asking for proof of your statement.

IF you actually knew that babble as well as we did, you wouldn't need the atheist to tell you, mophead. Read the babble it's all there. Or maybe....just google it...or do you need instruction for that as well?

fencerider said:You been talking about Genesis 1 and 2 all this time and never noticed the sky above the stars is supposed to be water?

Mophead replied: book chapter and verse please.

LOL.. I mean...jesus ,joseph and mary, you give the guy the book and chapter and he asks you to point it out to him....what a twit.

Quote from: aitm on June 27, 2017, 05:24:10 PM
fencerider said:You been talking about Genesis 1 and 2 all this time and never noticed the sky above the stars is supposed to be water?

Mophead replied: book chapter and verse please.

LOL.. I mean...jesus ,joseph and mary, you give the guy the book and chapter and he asks you to point it out to him....what a twit.

As I pointed out from the evidence at hand: ignorant and unpleasant.  And now I suppose I have to add lazy, on the basis of this evidence.  I mean, Genesis 1 and 2 isn't that much to read.  It's barely the length of a short story.

Alternately it's a matter of him being immobilized with terror, unwilling to face the fact that a) the heathens have read his magic book and b) they know it better than he does.

Either way it doesn't speak well of him.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 26, 2017, 10:15:21 AMOnce you understand what i have said in the OP Everything science will ever have to say about creation will neatly fit inside the creation account found in genesis.

Everything that will ever be discovered will fit the genesis account?  This is practically a textbook example of closed-mindedness.

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 27, 2017, 11:25:16 PM
Everything that will ever be discovered will fit the genesis account?  This is practically a textbook example of closed-mindedness.

Or plain old trolling.

Quote from: trdsf on June 27, 2017, 07:42:25 PM
As I pointed out from the evidence at hand: ignorant and unpleasant.  And now I suppose I have to add lazy, on the basis of this evidence.  I mean, Genesis 1 and 2 isn't that much to read.  It's barely the length of a short story.

Alternately it's a matter of him being immobilized with terror, unwilling to face the fact that a) the heathens have read his magic book and b) they know it better than he does.

Either way it doesn't speak well of him.

~or I simply like beating the hell out of the heathens with their interpretation of "water in the sky" and need them to commit fully before I start with the teeth kicking in ceremony. then shame them for not doing at least a google search before they committed to a atheist standby commentary blindly.

I can be as nice or as mean as you like. my responses are pending on your approach.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 09:17:19 AM
~or I simply like beating the hell out of the heathens with their interpretation of "water in the sky" and need them to commit fully before I start with the teeth kicking in ceremony. 

Cool, when ya gonna start?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 27, 2017, 04:21:57 PM
And you're incoherent as usual. Why are you wasting pixels?

Glob... Avatars you unobservant moron!!!

Your avatar is calvin is it not? Know it or not he has a side kick hobbs (imaginary tiger) tiger... now who has an tiger avatar? oh that's right fence rider... So again moron if I had anything to say to you I would have directed my message to you referencing hobbs not tigger. because again of your avatar and the member who's avatar is a real tiger.

go back and reread everything from fence rider's first quote to me to this one and you might...might get it. if you don't I'm ok with that as well as i've learn a long time ago people like you who generally just snipe commentary (add one liners to the subject matter) typically are not guys you can have a deep contextual conversation with anyways.

Quote from: aitm on June 27, 2017, 05:19:15 PM
IF you actually knew that babble as well as we did, you wouldn't need the atheist to tell you, mophead. Read the babble it's all there. Or maybe....just google it...or do you need instruction for that as well?

I am not asking anyone to do any more than YOUR RULES demand. I am simply calling you all to stand behind rule 11 when you write.

Me asking for BCV eliminated 75 to 80 of the bull shit quotes you a-holes strawman together from popular commentary. once you are made to start looking up crap you've always automatically believed on pure faith, you yourselves start to note that 80% of the crap you believe is simply made up. which again eliminates most of the crap you all have to say.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 09:17:19 AM


I can be as nice or as mean as you like. my responses are pending on your approach.

Typical.  Tout that you are following the commandments of jesus--yet at every opportunity it's I'll judge the fuck out of you, call you any demeaning names as I can think of; no turning the other cheek for me.  What that simply demonstrates is that you follow whatever you want and jesus and his commandments really mean little or nothing to you.  With every post you demonstrate that you think jesus is a fiction too.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 28, 2017, 09:38:42 AM
Typical.  Tout that you are following the commandments of jesus--yet at every opportunity it's I'll judge the fuck out of you, call you any demeaning names as I can think of; no turning the other cheek for me.  What that simply demonstrates is that you follow whatever you want and jesus and his commandments really mean little or nothing to you.  With every post you demonstrate that you think jesus is a fiction too.

On the contary...

When Jesus spoke to the pharisees, and they were combative was he all turn the other cheek? when the disciples strongly disagreed or default to their prejudices? did Jesus shrink away? when the money changers went to far did he fraily ask them to leave??

Now what happened when the pharisees/Nicodemus approached Christ with respect did Christ blast Him for being a fool or blind guide? when the disciples came to him humble did he call them names or reprimand them for being without basic understanding? When those who wrong Jesus did so and sought forgiveness what did Jesus do?

Your one sided idea or version of Jesus is why yur faith failed to begin with. how foolish are you to think you can control or try and manipulate me with your failed theology. You are a fool and or a blind guide if you think you can wwjd me into doing what you think is right. Again your failed version of God failed you on all counts, so then why assume I am worshiping the meek only jesus you know?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 09:32:30 AM
whiny drivel...

Simply put, you are a liar. You do not know the babble at all. All you is make up new interpretations of established text. The babble means exactly what it says, not what you "think" it says. This is why religion is slowly dying. Your god is a piece of shit and so are many of "its" followers.

Genesis 1:1-2 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

There's no mention of God creating the waters, yet he's already floating over it.

1:6-8 - "And God said, 'Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.' So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault 'sky.' And there was evening, and there was morningâ€"the second day."

The sky is water. Why not? It's blue. Rain comes from it. Makes sense.

1:9-10 - "And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so. God called the dry ground 'land,' and the gathered waters he called 'seas.' And God saw that it was good."

So God took the waters that were already there, moved some of it up, made room for land on the bottom, and basically made a water and earth sandwich out of it. Don't worry. I'm sure science agrees with this plagiarized Pagan story.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 28, 2017, 10:07:14 AM
Genesis 1:1-2 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

There's no mention of God creating the waters, yet he's already floating over it.

then maybe this is not a story of the creation of the universe, but of the creation of the heavens and earth just like Genesis 1 says..

Quote1:6-8 - "And God said, 'Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.' So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault 'sky.' And there was evening, and there was morningâ€"the second day."

The sky is water. Why not? It's blue. Rain comes from it. Makes sense.

Bwahahaha.. Seriously? I'm sorry all of this mess because you are reading from gramatical text you are not familiar with? let's try the easy to read version.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a space[c] to separate the water into two parts!” 7 So God made the space and separated the water. Some of the water was above it, and some of the water was below it. 8 God named that space “sky.” There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the second day...

So what water is their is the sky? or are you say almighty 'science' says there is absolutly no h2o in the air???

Quote1:9-10 - "And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' And it was so. God called the dry ground 'land,' and the gathered waters he called 'seas.' And God saw that it was good."

here clerly shows that the water that covered everything was suspended, otherwise if liquid would it not automatically gather to one place? so then why assume the water above the 'sky' was liquid when the water on land was not?

Quote
So God took the waters that were already there, moved some of it up, made room for land on the bottom, and basically made a water and earth sandwich out of it. Don't worry. I'm sure science agrees with this plagiarized Pagan story.

So no.. what I read was God reduced the earths mass by culling off some water to space. what remains is still in atmosphere.

Think about it (i know it's hard for some of you to do so with out the aid of some greater atheist telling what to think, but if you think about it. God started off with a water (in one of three states) planet only culled off a good portion then solidifies the water planetside. some of it remains as vapor which may seem trivial but think about rain fall totals globally... that is hundreds of trillions of tons of water that simply falls from the sky...

So tell me how genesis account of day 2 is in error

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 09:54:32 AM
On the contary...

When Jesus spoke to the pharisees, and they were combative was he all turn the other cheek? when the disciples strongly disagreed or default to their prejudices? did Jesus shrink away? when the money changers went to far did he fraily ask them to leave??

Now what happened when the pharisees/Nicodemus approached Christ with respect did Christ blast Him for being a fool or blind guide? when the disciples came to him humble did he call them names or reprimand them for being without basic understanding? When those who wrong Jesus did so and sought forgiveness what did Jesus do?

Your one sided idea or version of Jesus is why yur faith failed to begin with. how foolish are you to think you can control or try and manipulate me with your failed theology. You are a fool and or a blind guide if you think you can wwjd me into doing what you think is right. Again your failed version of God failed you on all counts, so then why assume I am worshiping the meek only jesus you know?

And this typical zian post underscores what all theists do--cherry pick.  The babble was quite cleverly assembled from a huge pile of writings to allow the leaders to pick and chose on every subject no matter which way they want to go.  Your fictional jesus can go to war--condemn war; be violent or not; beat plow shares into swords or sell for shirts.  Anything you want your Bugs Bunny to do he can do. 

you taut reading the bible for a single subject matter, which is the way the leaders of all ages want you to do.  If one reads it from start to finish, it is quite obvious that it can be made to say whatever that particular leader wants it to say.  It is ALL about power and money--nothing else.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 10:39:03 AMthen maybe this is not a story of the creation of the universe, but of the creation of the heavens and earth just like Genesis 1 says..

"The Heavens and the earth" = everything, you dumbass. We even see God create ALL OF THE STARS in day four. This story is clearly not limited to just the Earth and its sky. The writers of this story literally thought that we were the center of the universe.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 10:39:03 AMBwahahaha.. Seriously? I'm sorry all of this mess because you are reading from gramatical text you are not familiar with? let's try the easy to read version.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a space[c] to separate the water into two parts!” 7 So God made the space and separated the water. Some of the water was above it, and some of the water was below it. 8 God named that space “sky.” There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the second day...

So what water is their is the sky? or are you say almighty 'science' says there is absolutly no h2o in the air???

Once again, you say something incredibly stupid and act like I'm being ridiculous. Okay, dumbass. Let's take this slow so you can understand it, okay? Actually, I doubt that, but let's try anyway. Does the Bible say that God took a little bit of water and put it in the atmosphere? No. It says God created "vaults" in the sky, to keep the water that made the sky in the sky. It's not saying that there is water in the sky, it says that water is the sky. Understand now, or would I have better luck explaining this to an infant?

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 28, 2017, 10:44:15 AM
And this typical zian post underscores what all theists do--cherry pick.  The babble was quite cleverly assembled from a huge pile of writings to allow the leaders to pick and chose on every subject no matter which way they want to go.  Your fictional jesus can go to war--condemn war; be violent or not; beat plow shares into swords or sell for shirts.  Anything you want your Bugs Bunny to do he can do. 

you taut reading the bible for a single subject matter, which is the way the leaders of all ages want you to do.  If one reads it from start to finish, it is quite obvious that it can be made to say whatever that particular leader wants it to say.  It is ALL about power and money--nothing else.

You are right to a degree, but why is that you think?

It's because in Christianity our covenant is not tied to the law UNLESS you can't understand the freedom from the law you have been given. Christ freed us from the laws of 'morality' when he completed the law. this means we can tie ourselves down to the letter of the law or we can live free from it in so far as to not hurt our brothers who tie themselves to the law.

"I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Just kidding! lol. I actually want you to completely forget about the law. I'm going to make a New Covenant that will allow you to eat whatever sea food you want, mix as many fabrics as you want...but not be homosexual! That's still gross! But anyway, I'm not going to tell you guys that. I'm going to wait for several decades to tell other people to tell you that you're no longer bound to the law. Because although I am not the author of confusion, I like to construct my Holy Book in the most confusing way possible."

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 28, 2017, 09:38:42 AM
Typical.  Tout that you are following the commandments of jesus--yet at every opportunity it's I'll judge the fuck out of you, call you any demeaning names as I can think of; no turning the other cheek for me.  What that simply demonstrates is that you follow whatever you want and jesus and his commandments really mean little or nothing to you.  With every post you demonstrate that you think jesus is a fiction too.

Typical Abrahamics follow, or don't follow, the Jesus of their own dogma .. they don't actually read, know or understand the NT ... for some they follow synagogue/church/mosque dogma, or they invent their own.  Not that there aren't problems, if you read, know or understand the NT ... as an anthology of early Hellenistic Jewish polemic.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 11:36:18 AM
You are right to a degree, but why is that you think?

It's because in Christianity our covenant is not tied to the law UNLESS you can't understand the freedom from the law you have been given. Christ freed us from the laws of 'morality' when he completed the law. this means we can tie ourselves down to the letter of the law or we can live free from it in so far as to not hurt our brothers who tie themselves to the law.

Atheists, agnostics and probably most pagans, also are free from morality.  This is not unique to "saved" Christians.  Cheap grace indeed.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 28, 2017, 10:47:55 AM
"The Heavens and the earth" = everything, you dumbass. We even see God create ALL OF THE STARS in day four. This story is clearly not limited to just the Earth and its sky. The writers of this story literally thought that we were the center of the universe.

Quote

Actually sport it could mean either:
שָׁמַיִם shâmayim, shaw-mah'-yim; dual of an unused singular שָׁמֶ×" shâmeh; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve)

But as you pointed out water covered the earth.

Quote
Once again, you say something incredibly stupid and act like I'm being ridiculous. Okay, dumbass. Let's take this slow so you can understand it, okay? Actually, I doubt that, but let's try anyway.

I speak to you like a fool because unlike you I have personally studied these arguments for a very long time and know where the Hebrew stands in the argument. and I know what is and is not possible in the translation not based on commentary some atheist did before me, but because I have personally studied the subject matter for some time and can primary source all of my points, which I know you can not as you are using a very old and worn our argument that better smarter guys than you have already tried and failed to use on me and the material I bring

QuoteDoes the Bible say that God took a little bit of water and put it in the atmosphere? No. It says God created "vaults" in the sky, to keep the water that made the sky in the sky.

Again Smart guy Hundreds of trillions of tons cascade down from the shy every year!!! This is what was left. where did the rest go? Let me ask you this know anything about mars? did you know NASA says there was water on it? where did that water go? once Mar's magnetic field all but failed the solar winds pulled mar's atmosphere which dropped the atmospereic pressure which lowers the boiling point and caused the water to all but evaporate, unless trapped underground.

Now what happens to water when you raise it near or above earth's magnetic field? the same thing. solar wind remove the heavy excess what's left= trillion of tons of rain.

Quote
It's not saying that there is water in the sky, it says that water is the sky. Understand now, or would I have better luck explaining this to an infant?

which is above the protection of the magnetic field. @ zero atmosphere, say approx 2 microns of vacuum, water boils @ -90*F which mean the ocean above the earth would boil off before it could freeze/turn to vapor only to be carried away by solar winds.

How those teeth feel? the one's I just kicked in?

you might be in 'the nile' on what just happened, but google it.. the rain, mars facts, solar winds, what happened to the water on mars, before you speak.

Science: the double edged sword making God plausible since day 2 of creation

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 28, 2017, 10:44:15 AM
And this typical zian post underscores what all theists do--cherry pick.  The babble was quite cleverly assembled from a huge pile of writings to allow the leaders to pick and chose on every subject no matter which way they want to go.  Your fictional jesus can go to war--condemn war; be violent or not; beat plow shares into swords or sell for shirts.  Anything you want your Bugs Bunny to do he can do. 

you taut reading the bible for a single subject matter, which is the way the leaders of all ages want you to do.  If one reads it from start to finish, it is quite obvious that it can be made to say whatever that particular leader wants it to say.  It is ALL about power and money--nothing else.

The Torah we have was put together by Ezra, while Judah was a province of the Persian Empire.  While the Persians were religiously tolerant, they appointed ethnarcs to rule over selected theocratic populations, like Judah.  Ezra was the ethnarc appointed by the Shah of Persia.  Ezra was (per extra biblical material) inspired to write the entire Torah, dictated from a heavenly copy by an angel (sound familiar?) ... but in fact it is cobbed together by Ezra from various Judah and Israel materials prior to the Babylonian Exile.  Ezra's purpose was to give the first Zionists (the elite returning from Babylonian Exile) the power to lord it over the Am HaEretz .. the common people who were left in Judah by the Babylonians, who never went into exile.  We would call these Palestinians .. in modern circumstances .. when history repeated itself with the second Zionists.  The modern Zionists aren't independent either, they are there to pacify the locals for the Anglo-American Empire.  The other purpose of Ezra as to marginalize the mixed ethnic Samaritans in what used to be Israel.  The Israelites had suffered exile earlier and longer than the Judahites ... but they also had survivors who were the Jews in N Iraq and in Iran.  Most of the Judahite exiles in Babylon, stayed where they were at ... and formed the Jews in S Iraq and in Iran.  The Samaritans were mixed ethnicity ... but just barely.  Their Am HaEretz (common folk) were made to intermarry with other Semites from Syria, brought in by the Assyrians.

The Samaritans had their own Torah, similar to the Zionist Torah ... but they didn't have the other books that later became a part of rabbinic Judaism.  Ironically today, the surviving Samaritans are the most genuine Jews on the planet, in terms of actually following Torah (including sacrificing lambs at Passover).  Rabbinic Judaism, after 200 CE, went its own way, though not without dissenters.  One of the more recent dissenters, Baruch Spinoza, was part of the spark that created the Enlightenment after 1700 CE.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 28, 2017, 11:49:30 AM
"I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Just kidding! lol. I actually want you to completely forget about the law. I'm going to make a New Covenant that will allow you to eat whatever sea food you want, mix as many fabrics as you want...but not be homosexual! That's still gross! But anyway, I'm not going to tell you guys that. I'm going to wait for several decades to tell other people to tell you that you're no longer bound to the law. Because although I am not the author of confusion, I like to construct my Holy Book in the most confusing way possible."

What confusing about it? unless you are looking for strict rules and laws like everyother religion.

Rather once you understand there are only two rules to Christianity the rest can make sense.

1) Love your lord God with all of your being.
(which is why the bible is set up the way it is ad why there are so many different denominations.)

2) Love your neighbor as yourself. All of the law is now contained within these two commandments.

We are given freedom and not a bunch of rules not to run wild but to worship God anyway we see fit. Remember the one law being to worship God with all of our being. What if I were musically inclined and could play every instrument but couldn't otherwise sit through a sermon without sleeping? If there was only one brand of christianity one church and music was just a tiny part of it, would/could I be worshping God with all of my being? No. So what is the answer? schism and break off into a group of like minded belivers.

Like wise what if my best worship was in study and debate could I be made to sit through a 90% musical worship service? would i be full filling God's greatest command? no. so again I have the freedom to break off this group and seek out a group of like minded believers!

What does this have to do with fabrics and homosexuals? The laws containing fabrics were consider y the jews to be social laws. meaning laws one had to abide by to live as an OT jew. these laws had absolutly nothing to do with morality. they were like our traffic laws or our laws concerning running a business in our society. Remember Israel was a theocrisy meaning it was a religious movement and a state/nation. many atheist douche bags can not/will not recognise that not all law concerning the OT jews had to do with morality. they only pertain to living in a OT jew society. so diet, fbrics, treatment of slaves all out the window as they one were not moral law and two did not require atonement from God. one was simply exiled from the OT jewish community.

Now the laws pertaining to homosexuality were considered moral law. these laws/the 10 commandments cross over to a degree because it is this law Jesus did not come to abolish or change, but offer atonement for.

That said being gay is a sin but not the unforgivable sin. it is a sin like another sexual sin and requires the same atonement.

Jesus was quoting Judaism.  Why are you a Christian?

Quote from: Baruch on June 28, 2017, 12:42:14 PM
Jesus was quoting Judaism.  Why are you a Christian?

Are you unaware of what Jesus thought of the Jewish leadership?

Are you unaware He called the leaders fools and blind guides? This mean Jesus was against the direction the leaders were guiding the jews spiritually?

Are you unware that Jesus intentionally broke the traditional observance of the sabbath which schismed what it meant to be a jew and a follower of Christ?

This is just one example where Jesus separates himself from Judaism

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 11:36:18 AM
You are right to a degree, but why is that you think?

It's because in Christianity our covenant is not tied to the law UNLESS you can't understand the freedom from the law you have been given. Christ freed us from the laws of 'morality' when he completed the law. this means we can tie ourselves down to the letter of the law or we can live free from it in so far as to not hurt our brothers who tie themselves to the law.

And once again you speak balderdash.  You make no sense.  But you are a theist, and you don't need or want reason and sense.  You just want belief.  That's all you have--so crawl back into your fiction and live there.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 28, 2017, 02:35:34 PM
And once again you speak balderdash.  You make no sense.  But you are a theist, and you don't need or want reason and sense.  You just want belief.  That's all you have--so crawl back into your fiction and live there.

Then ask for a simpler explanation. ask for an example. ASK for something don't assume that it is jibberish if YOU can't make the connection.

It's because in Christianity our covenant is not tied to the law UNLESS you can't understand the freedom from the law you have been given. Christ freed us from the laws of 'morality' when he completed the law. this means we can tie ourselves down to the letter of the law or we can live free from it in so far as to not hurt our brothers who tie themselves to the law.

The difference between OT judaism and NT christianity is that "the Law" recorded in the bible was subdivided into 3 aspects. Religion/religious cermony, Social law/what it meant to be and live as an OT jew. and the Moral law.

Now ask what happens when you break the social law... you were cast out of being a jewish citizen

Now ask what happens when you break a cermonial law, fined by the temple or  more than likly your efforts were deemed unworthy and were given twice the burden next year to over come. What happened when you failed at the religious law? your covenant with God was broken/could not cash in on exo 22. coud possible sold into slavery

SO ask what happens to those who break the moral law. their version of Hell fire and brimestone. This carries over. the other does not. why? because with every law there is punishment or recourse.

Now on religious or civil matters it does not matter because the only recourse the law provides is excommunication from OT judaism. Remember they lived under a theocracy where day to day was tied into religion. So to ignore the can't eat pig law was to break a social law. which again meant you were not considered a cleanjew/someone to mingle with. But So what, we aren't meant to be jews. We are Christian (it's this whole other religion with no theocratic mandates/laws)

Do you get it? cermonial and social laws go by the way side because they only have ramifications in social and cermonial settings which all are gone since OT judaism is not longer practiced.

What is left? the moral law the 10 commandments.

Why are these left because they represent s debt that can not be paid by man. This debt is paid with life.

So Jesus pays that debt (It is finished on the cross) now even this moral debt has been lifted, and the law complete. meaning there is nothing outstanding the law has to collect.

In short 'we' through Christ own nothing to the laws of Moses (the laws of ceremony and civil OT justice) and we own nothing to the law of God as Christ paid all debt and satisfied what was owed.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 28, 2017, 07:20:10 AM
Or plain old trolling.

Hey, trolls gotta eat, too!



(http://orig13.deviantart.net/9f2c/f/2014/124/d/5/bunny_eating_troll_face_by_omegshi147-d7h3ajo.jpg)

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 01:20:45 PM
Are you unaware of what Jesus thought of the Jewish leadership?

Are you unaware He called the leaders fools and blind guides? This mean Jesus was against the direction the leaders were guiding the jews spiritually?

Are you unware that Jesus intentionally broke the traditional observance of the sabbath which schismed what it meant to be a jew and a follower of Christ?

This is just one example where Jesus separates himself from Judaism

So, we are to blindly follow the folks who claim to be our leaders?  I am not sure that Jesus broke any Jewish laws ... he broke the innovations of the Pharisees however.  Jesus never separated himself from Judaism, he illustrated it better than the Sadducees or the Pharisees ... and they killed him for it.  Of course the Romans couldn't tolerate the Truth either, nobody can.

This fuck is a retard. But feed the idiot if you wish.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 23, 2017, 10:04:13 AM
It's unfair to compare Baruch with Drich. They only have one thing in common: they are both religious. Baruch actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Biblical interpretation, which is probably why he doesn't believe in it. When Baruch writes something, I pay attention. When Drich writes something, my eyes roll back so far, I can see my own brain.

Forgive me, but how does expertise in superstition (the bible or any other religious text) mean anything other than that person has learned the best defenses against rational thought and reality?

Baruch spouts articulate superstition, Drich does not.  But is articulate superstition any more real than utterly dumb superstition?

Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 03:54:53 AM
Forgive me, but how does expertise in superstition (the bible or any other religious text) mean anything other than that person has learned the best defenses against rational thought and reality?

Baruch spouts articulate superstition, Drich does not.  But is articulate superstition any more real than utterly dumb superstition?

Glad you like it ;-)

Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 03:54:53 AM
Forgive me, but how does expertise in superstition (the bible or any other religious text) mean anything other than that person has learned the best defenses against rational thought and reality?

Baruch spouts articulate superstition, Drich does not.  But is articulate superstition any more real than utterly dumb superstition?

Yes. It is quite different. One comes as a self-proclaimed expert who has yet to read the Bible. The other comes with knowledge. One arrogantly proclaims, "I know the truth! It is true because I said so!" The other doesn't really care if you agree with him or not, nor does he claim absolute knowledge. I can learn stuff from Baruch, not from Drich.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 28, 2017, 03:12:18 PM
Then ask for a simpler explanation. ask for an example. ASK for something don't assume that it is jibberish if YOU can't make the connection.

Good idea.  I'll ASK for something.  I'll ASK the All Powerful Oz to give you a brain. 

Quote from: Baruch on June 28, 2017, 07:27:45 PM
So, we are to blindly follow the folks who claim to be our leaders?  I am not sure that Jesus broke any Jewish laws ... he broke the innovations of the Pharisees however.  Jesus never separated himself from Judaism, he illustrated it better than the Sadducees or the Pharisees ... and they killed him for it.  Of course the Romans couldn't tolerate the Truth either, nobody can.

When He claimed to be the son of God he broke the first command, when He healed a sick man on the sabbath He broke the traditional understand of the sabbath, When He said "stand up your sins are forgiven, to a Jew of that stature would know that only God can forgive sins, and if God crippled this man for sinning then it would take God to release Him. This to the pharrisees was also a trick/example of Jesus breaking the 1st commandment. He allowed his deciples to eat without going through the cermoinial hand washing, which was a very big deal to them..

Then He fashioned a cord into a whip and beat the hell out of the money changers and ran them out of the temple (money changers would have had to been priest as they were handling 'clean animals.')

Granted He did not break the law of God, but He did break the ceremonial and social laws of the Jews. Which schism OT Judaism. You asked why I not a Jew if Jesus was citing Jewish text? It is for the same reason that 2000 years of Christian have separated themselves from Judaism.. Because Christ separated the law of God from the laws of moses and cast them aside. Then provided atonement for the laws of God. Which makes a follower of Christ free from both any moral, ceremonial or civil law.

In my experience, when superstitious people ask for something, they don't really notice when they don't get it.  But on the occasional times they do, it measures more highly.  It is kind of like praying for a 6 on a die roll.  It does happen, but not usually.

Quote from: aitm on June 28, 2017, 08:07:30 PM
This fuck is a retard. But feed the idiot if you wish.

Still waiting form my rule 11 citations.

(oh and did you see? did you see?? I answered your earth water thing anyway, and I used 'science to do it!!) Again maybe, just maybe it is like I said. 90% of your bull Sh*T questions go away when you are made to provide a context for a bad quote you have made. and in the event it takes a little more than a contextual reading I want you to take full responsibility by provide BCV when I ultimately answer your question

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 29, 2017, 08:07:26 AM
Yes. It is quite different. One comes as a self-proclaimed expert who has yet to read the Bible. The other comes with knowledge. One arrogantly proclaims, "I know the truth! It is true because I said so!" The other doesn't really care if you agree with him or not, nor does he claim absolute knowledge. I can learn stuff from Baruch, not from Drich.

What I'm offering is an audience with the almighty... Actually not me but where to go to find God. You want proof? God can send it for days, and have you back before the morning light. I offer nothing more than a testimony in my exposure to God and what gift he has left me with concerning the bible. Anything more I challenge you get from God your self.

I'm not asking for money support nor for your respect. I am here to provide you with God's truth and where to find it.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 29, 2017, 10:12:31 AM
I am here to provide you with God's truth and where to find it.

Here we have it.  Full of pride--and stupidly arrogant; so full of himself and puffed up I'm surprised his head has not exploded already.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 29, 2017, 10:05:42 AM
In my experience, when superstitious people ask for something, they don't really notice when they don't get it.  But on the occasional times they do, it measures more highly.  It is kind of like praying for a 6 on a die roll.  It does happen, but not usually.

everything has a cost. sometimes the cost is far greater than what you'd ask for worth. When you are given such a gift you find yourself weighing the cost of everything, and can even paralize yourself from asking for anything. Some call this contentment. if it is I find myself there more often than not.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 29, 2017, 10:32:09 AM
Here we have it.  Full of pride--and stupidly arrogant; so full of himself and puffed up I'm surprised his head has not exploded already.

You know the pharisees said the same thing about Christ himself.

I guess I'm doing something right!

God (if there is a god) probably (if there are probabilities for a god) doesn't want you (if there is a you)  to be speaking) if there is godspeech for it (if there is even an it).

I COULD get more obtuse, but I'm straining the farqats through the wingabs as it is!

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 29, 2017, 10:03:27 AM
When He claimed to be the son of God he broke the first command, when He healed a sick man on the sabbath He broke the traditional understand of the sabbath, When He said "stand up your sins are forgiven, to a Jew of that stature would know that only God can forgive sins, and if God crippled this man for sinning then it would take God to release Him. This to the pharrisees was also a trick/example of Jesus breaking the 1st commandment. He allowed his deciples to eat without going through the cermoinial hand washing, which was a very big deal to them..

Then He fashioned a cord into a whip and beat the hell out of the money changers and ran them out of the temple (money changers would have had to been priest as they were handling 'clean animals.')

Granted He did not break the law of God, but He did break the ceremonial and social laws of the Jews. Which schism OT Judaism. You asked why I not a Jew if Jesus was citing Jewish text? It is for the same reason that 2000 years of Christian have separated themselves from Judaism.. Because Christ separated the law of God from the laws of moses and cast them aside. Then provided atonement for the laws of God. Which makes a follower of Christ free from both any moral, ceremonial or civil law.

What fictional characters say bothers me not at all.  I regard them just as fictional as other people here.  Where I differ is that I take fiction very seriously.  You really don't know too much about Judaism, other than the polemic the Gentile Christians have used since 135 CE.  Jewish Messianics were experienced in Judaism, and wouldn't make that error or show that prejudice (Paul for example did not).  Jews were not united then nor now (two Jews, three opinions ... so the saying goes).  Paul's expectation of immanent apocalypse wasn't realized .. he was a false messiah .... but one Hell of a rabbi.

BTW - I have the power to forgive some sins.  I frequently do so.  And I am not a Pharisee ... as I mentioned before.  The Pharisees were a lay sect (see rebellion of Korah in Numbers) that rebelled against the Temple priesthood (plus Levites).  When they did this under the Maccabees ... tens of thousands of them were crucified.  An accommodation was reached between the Pharisees and Sadducees (the Temple priesthood plus Levites) under Roman domination from 63 BCE onward.  The Romans (under Pompey Magnus) intervened because of a succession dispute in the Maccabee family.  Some would say that this is why Pompey Magnus came to a bad end in Egypt in 48 BCE.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 29, 2017, 08:07:26 AM
Yes. It is quite different. One comes as a self-proclaimed expert who has yet to read the Bible.

that's a outright lie.

QuoteThe other comes with knowledge. One arrogantly proclaims, "I know the truth! It is true because I said so!" The other doesn't really care if you agree with him or not, nor does he claim absolute knowledge.

I claim the knowledge God has given me to silence your teacher. i claim the knowledge to answer every question you put up and failed to refute. and I can vet or provide reference mater to my claims.. So yeah I know the truth as well.

Quote
I can learn stuff from Baruch, not from Drich.

We from our last exchange I hope you 'learned' how flawed you teacher was. I hope you learned I can back up my exegesis of scripture with proper reference material. and i hope you realize that at best your 'teacher' is confused about the majority of the facts he chose to share today at worst is lying to drag you further away from God.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 29, 2017, 10:32:09 AM
Here we have it.  Full of pride--and stupidly arrogant; so full of himself and puffed up I'm surprised his head has not exploded already.

Like that guy in Big Trouble in Little China? Now that fellow was puffed up!



(https://img-comment-fun.9cache.com/media/aKwvxQ/aKVZEGJ9_700wa_0.gif%5D)

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 29, 2017, 10:44:29 AM
You know the pharisees said the same thing about Christ himself.

I guess I'm doing something right!

Galileo Messiah Gambit?

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then in a surprisingly high number of cases it turns out you're still wrong.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 29, 2017, 10:44:29 AM
You know the pharisees said the same thing about Christ himself.

I guess I'm doing something right!

I don't recall anyone calling Jesus prideful, stupidly arrogant, or on the verge of exploding from self-importance in the Bible. I do remember people claiming him to use demons to perform miracles, and accusing him of threatening the holy temple. But people calling him arrogant? Nah, I'm going to have to request a citation on that one mate. Also worth consideration is that another reason why people may calling you an arrogant piece of shit is because you are an arrogant piece of shit.

But I know how your type thinks. The more disliked you are, the more "persecuted" you are, the better. Light doesn't mix with darkness, right? So who needs friends? The more you make people hate you, the more points you earn in Heaven.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 29, 2017, 10:08:05 AM
I answered your earth water thing anyway, and I used 'science to do it!!

You made up an answer completely different from what your gawd said....good job....you self masturbated the babble like all you xians do. Go now..please your self again, or maybe..I don't know...go read the babble for yourself maybe.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 29, 2017, 10:44:29 AM
You know the pharisees said the same thing about Christ himself.

I guess I'm doing something right!

Absolutely.  Our new christ.  When are you going to get yourself nailed to a cross?????  Can I come and give you some vinegar on a sponge?????

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 29, 2017, 07:29:43 PM
But I know how your type thinks. The more disliked you are, the more "persecuted" you are, the better. Light doesn't mix with darkness, right? So who needs friends? The more you make people hate you, the more points you earn in Heaven.

The church invented SMBD. And they have the gall to complain about sexual deviancy.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 29, 2017, 10:32:09 AM
Here we have it.  Full of pride--and stupidly arrogant; so full of himself and puffed up I'm surprised his head has not exploded already.

Pride of what?

What good is pride if no one will alow you to share it? or no one cares of what you are proud of?

Ever be to a car show with a bone stock 73 vega? Super rare prototype. 1 of 1. who cares. there is a historical curiosity for a moment, but that usually fades quickly... Why people want to see 57 chevys and old mustangs not america's first sub compact.

So then where is this stupidly arrogant pride sourced from? Or is it I will not allow you to shame me for my love in my car? Are you mistaken pride for integrity and honor i have for God, and will not shunn it or walk away because it is not what you want to see. It is not how others react when you try and shame them for bring their unique one off car to your car show.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 30, 2017, 10:43:18 AM
Pride of what?

What good is pride if no one will alow you to share it? or no one cares of what you are proud of?

So then where is this stupidly arrogant pride sourced from? Or is it I will not allow you to shame me for my love in my car? Are you mistaken pride for integrity and honor i have for God, and will not shunn it or walk away because it is not what you want to see. It is not how others react when you try and shame them for bring their unique one off car to your car show.

Why do you ask me 'pride of what'?  And do you think pride is a virtue? 

Allow you to share it?  The 'it' I assume is your faith.  Sounds like a personal problem.  One I don't want to hear about or care about or even think is real (your faith is real--what you have faith in is not).

You came here, to an ATHEIST site to pridefully show your rock solid faith.  No atheist, in case you haven't figured it out yet (and since you are so very, very stupidly arrogant) atheists don't have 'faith'.  Personally, I don't have beliefs.  What I think is real, is based on empirical evidence, not belief.  Since I don't have any beliefs, I don't have faith.    I think you are ignorant (and since ignorance can be fixed that's okay) and stupid (which cannot be fixed) to want atheists to show they are down with your faith.  I am not trying to shame you, for you are much to far gone in your fiction to show any shame--you, on the other hand are all about shaming the lost atheist.  That is a stock-in-trade for theist--shame; they love to use it as a club.  Basically, you came here with a message about a fiction you think is real.  I've thought this all through and did not solicit, nor want your stupidity--why would you think I would, except for your pride, arrogant stupidity????

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 29, 2017, 07:29:43 PM
I don't recall anyone calling Jesus prideful, stupidly arrogant, or on the verge of exploding from self-importance in the Bible.

that's because you have studied your bible properly... you probably just read it cover to cover.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8&version=ERV 48- end of the chapter sport.

Jesus infuriated the priests and the self righteous crowd to the point the tried to stone him. which is a little past where I have taken you This is but one of several examples where Christ makes the 'establishment' livid.

QuoteI do remember people claiming him to use demons to perform miracles, and accusing him of threatening the holy temple. But people calling him arrogant?

56 Your father Abraham was very happy that he would see the day when I came. He saw that day and was happy.”

57 The Jews said to Jesus, “What? How can you say you have seen Abraham? You are not even 50 years old!”

58 Jesus answered, “The fact is, before Abraham was born, I Am.” 59 When he said this, they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus hid, and then he left the Temple area.

His arrogance placing himself above the authority and place of abraham by claiming "I am" (god) drove the people to stone Him without roman consent of execution. This would have meant crusifiction for the stone-ers. Yet they were so enraged so impassioned by what Christ had the audacity to say, they were going to stone Him on the spot anyway.

If you read the whole chapter the Jewish leadership and a crowd gather to confront Jesus on the authority from which all of the miricals and teaching were coming from. They planned to put it all off on a demon, but Christ took the opportunity to twist the outcome which just inflamed these men beyond reason or self control.

Quote
Nah, I'm going to have to request a citation on that one mate. Also worth consideration is that another reason why people may calling you an arrogant piece of shit is because you are an arrogant piece of shit.

30 The Father and I are one.”

31 Again the Jews there picked up stones to kill Jesus. 32 But he said to them, “The many wonderful things you have seen me do are from the Father. Which of these good things are you killing me for?”

33 They answered, “We are not killing you for any good thing you did. But you say things that insult God. You are only a man, but you say you are the same as God! That is why we are trying to kill you!”

So in essence The Jews were trying to kill Jesus a second time because He claimed to be the same as God.. What is the defination of arrogance again?
ar·ro·gant
/ˈerəɡənt/

adjective

    1. having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities: "he's arrogant and opinionated"

How much more arrogant can one be than to call himself God? of course unless the man is God...

Which brings us back to me. You call me arrogant because I seem to have all the answers and because I am no longer seeking or guessing at the truth. One understand this condition is a gift of the Holy Spirit. In essence God grants me access to his knoweledge his understanding. It does not belong to me I simply have a heavenly library card...

Your problem is you desperately need to believe there is no God or your whole world shit storms down around you. So If i claim or rather even if I can show I have knowledge of God others over look, or can not observe, in your world view I am the one playing games I am the one who is arrogant.

What if im telling the truth... What if I am just right simply because God grants me access to infinite knowledge... Can you imagine how that would impower someone? the confidence it would give them?? Not that I could begin to process it all, I simply have been invited to share in what I can grasp. but even so... my little share is a far site from what one can grasp after his attempt at Christianity fails.

Arrogant? no, not if what I say is true. remember the defination of arrogant and not just the emotion of the word. So how do you know what I say is true or not? One find God where the bible tells you to look or be ready to open up some old dusty books.

QuoteBut I know how your type thinks. The more disliked you are, the more "persecuted" you are, the better.

Actually no. the more of that I face the long I know my task to be.

Quote
Light doesn't mix with darkness, right? So who needs friends? The more you make people hate you, the more points you earn in Heaven.

What makes you think all of you are in darkness? I came from where you stand and even then I was not in darkness. I have said many times, I truly believe some of you will be shocked by which side of the pearly gates you will watch eternity unfold. However there is a vast difference between being a poor man who barely gets into heaven and a rich man who gets to spend time with God.

Quote from: aitm on June 29, 2017, 07:57:11 PM
You made up an answer completely different from what your gawd said....good job....you self masturbated the babble like all you xians do. Go now..please your self again, or maybe..I don't know...go read the babble for yourself maybe.

No i didn't.

I nswered it the same way.

God put wate above the atmosphere/sky which is above the ionosphere which is outside the know reach of our gravatiational shielding which makes one water boil a -80F and the water vapor would have been taken away by solar winds.

All i did was used science to explain to you why that water is still not there like you think it should be. (an ocean above the sky and a ocean below the land.

If you don't like that I also told you hundred of trillions of gallons water cycle through out skys every year. and That too can be considered to be an ocean in the sky.

Why do you lie so much about what I say? are you stupid? is english a second language? or do you really think I don't know what it is i have said? So then why try and lie to me the author of these words about what was said? I know what was said i wrote them, and as such can not be moved into thinking I said or relayed a different message.

Or are you maybe just an alt left type of person where truth is something you create based on feeling?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 30, 2017, 12:02:14 PM
that's because you have studied your bible properly... you probably just read it cover to cover.

Probably a typo, but I still agree regardless.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 30, 2017, 12:02:14 PMhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8&version=ERV 48- end of the chapter sport.

Jesus infuriated the priests and the self righteous crowd to the point the tried to stone him. which is a little past where I have taken you This is but one of several examples where Christ makes the 'establishment' livid.
56 Your father Abraham was very happy that he would see the day when I came. He saw that day and was happy.”

57 The Jews said to Jesus, “What? How can you say you have seen Abraham? You are not even 50 years old!”

58 Jesus answered, “The fact is, before Abraham was born, I Am.” 59 When he said this, they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus hid, and then he left the Temple area.

His arrogance placing himself above the authority and place of abraham by claiming "I am" (god) drove the people to stone Him without roman consent of execution. This would have meant crusifiction for the stone-ers. Yet they were so enraged so impassioned by what Christ had the audacity to say, they were going to stone Him on the spot anyway.

If you read the whole chapter the Jewish leadership and a crowd gather to confront Jesus on the authority from which all of the miricals and teaching were coming from. They planned to put it all off on a demon, but Christ took the opportunity to twist the outcome which just inflamed these men beyond reason or self control.
30 The Father and I are one.”

31 Again the Jews there picked up stones to kill Jesus. 32 But he said to them, “The many wonderful things you have seen me do are from the Father. Which of these good things are you killing me for?”

33 They answered, “We are not killing you for any good thing you did. But you say things that insult God. You are only a man, but you say you are the same as God! That is why we are trying to kill you!”

So in essence The Jews were trying to kill Jesus a second time because He claimed to be the same as God.. What is the defination of arrogance again?
ar·ro·gant
/ˈerəɡənt/

adjective

    1. having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities: "he's arrogant and opinionated"

How much more arrogant can one be than to call himself God? of course unless the man is God...

Which brings us back to me. You call me arrogant because I seem to have all the answers and because I am no longer seeking or guessing at the truth. One understand this condition is a gift of the Holy Spirit. In essence God grants me access to his knoweledge his understanding. It does not belong to me I simply have a heavenly library card...

Your problem is you desperately need to believe there is no God or your whole world shit storms down around you. So If i claim or rather even if I can show I have knowledge of God others over look, or can not observe, in your world view I am the one playing games I am the one who is arrogant.

What if im telling the truth... What if I am just right simply because God grants me access to infinite knowledge... Can you imagine how that would impower someone? the confidence it would give them?? Not that I could begin to process it all, I simply have been invited to share in what I can grasp. but even so... my little share is a far site from what one can grasp after his attempt at Christianity fails.

Arrogant? no, not if what I say is true. remember the defination of arrogant and not just the emotion of the word. So how do you know what I say is true or not? One find God where the bible tells you to look or be ready to open up some old dusty books.

In none of your examples was Jesus accused of arrogance. He was accused of blasphemy, which is an entirely different thing. You're contorting the scriptures to suit your needs. How typical.

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 30, 2017, 12:02:14 PMActually no. the more of that I face the long I know my task to be.

The long you know your task to be? WTF?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 30, 2017, 12:02:14 PMWhat makes you think all of you are in darkness? I came from where you stand and even then I was not in darkness. I have said many times, I truly believe some of you will be shocked by which side of the pearly gates you will watch eternity unfold. However there is a vast difference between being a poor man who barely gets into heaven and a rich man who gets to spend time with God.

Changing the topic and dodging again? Okay then. No, you did not come from where I stand. You've got that backwards. My youth pastor used to do the same thing. He called unbelievers "pre-Christians," implying that Christianity was a step up from unbelief. I came from a deeply religious and devout background and escaped into enlightenment. I am a post-Christian. To go back to Christianity would be like a dog returning to its own vomit. I'll have to have a pretty big chunk of my brain dissected before I will be lacking enough in reason to consider going back to that life.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 30, 2017, 11:38:25 AM
Why do you ask me 'pride of what'?  And do you think pride is a virtue? 

I am asking you what is it you think i am proud of? no-one cares here how badly I beat any of you. i don't talk to people outside of this forum about what goes on here. I have been doing this for a very long time, it's not new and exciting.. so what is there for me to be proud of?

No.. Pride is a sin.

QuoteAllow you to share it?  The 'it' I assume is your faith.  Sounds like a personal problem.  One I don't want to hear about or care about or even think is real (your faith is real--what you have faith in is not).

You came here, to an ATHEIST site to pridefully show your rock solid faith.

Ah, no. I came here to straighten out your B/S theological assumptions and to share the truth with you. I am not a man of faith. I am a man that needs almost daily afirmation from God that i am on the right path, despite what he has done for me in the past. I have belief in God because of what He shares with me. Or in atheist speak of the evidence he has shared with me.

Quote
No atheist, in case you haven't figured it out yet (and since you are so very, very stupidly arrogant) atheists don't have 'faith'. 

That is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time in a forum.
we all have faith dumb ass it's just to a matter of degree of how much we are willing to expend to net a result.

Luckily Christ said we need nothing more than a mustardseed worth to summon the power of the Holy Spirit to move mountains of doubt. If you've ever stepped on an elevator or in a plane or in a car or in anything you have not designed tested and proofed yourself you have at least that mustard seed.

Meaning all you need do is A/S/K

Quote
Personally, I don't have beliefs.  What I think is real, is based on empirical evidence, not belief.

then your a fool who does not understand that only 1/3 of the world around him can fit into this catagory, and that 'rationalist views fill in the sum total of the human experience. or you are a fool of faith... faith meaning when other atheist makes comments like this that they are on solid ground. faith that science explains everything and your beliefs are well guarded in your phrasing. The problem with that is your finite ablity to comprehend what science can and can not explain... you just have faith that it is all on par because your cell phone works most of the time and we launch rockets into space... Meanwhile back in the real world God offers you a direct audience on your own personal level and you have the nerve to say it takes too much faith.. here's the thing rincess I know it you know and God knows it... you are just trying to hide your eye away fro God in a place you know He will never stoop down to look for you in... Rather He is waiting for your return.

Since I don't have any beliefs, I don't have faith.    I think you are ignorant (and since ignorance can be fixed that's okay) and stupid (which cannot be fixed) to want atheists to show they are down with your faith.  I am not trying to shame you, for you are much to far gone in your fiction to show any shame--you, on the other hand are all about shaming the lost atheist.  That is a stock-in-trade for theist--shame; they love to use it as a club.  Basically, you came here with a message about a fiction you think is real.  I've thought this all through and did not solicit, nor want your stupidity--why would you think I would, except for your pride, arrogant stupidity????
[/quote]

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 30, 2017, 12:23:59 PM
Probably a typo, but I still agree regardless.

In none of your examples was Jesus accused of arrogance. He was accused of blasphemy, which is an entirely different thing. You're contorting the scriptures to suit your needs. How typical.

The word arrogant does not appear in the koine greek sport, but rather we seek to define the word and show examples of arrogance in such cases. In both cases the pharisees though Christ to be arrogant (as per the definition) because they would not recognize Him as God. If they did his claims and works would not exceed his importance or abilities. there it is right in front of you and you are looking for a loop hole.

This is why I must seem arrogant to you, because again here I am 100% right but you are simply not smart enough to identify what I said to be truth. then when I explain and make you feel stupid for being uninformed in the demand you made, you want to make it my fault rather than accept responsibility for your own intellectual short comings.

QuoteThe long you know your task to be? WTF?

The more venom I get from you the longer I know my task to be. meaning I do not seek hardship from you.

Quote
Changing the topic and dodging again? Okay then. No, you did not come from where I stand.

You stand an atheist.. I stood an atheist. therefore metaphorically I came from where you stand.

Quote
You've got that backwards. My youth pastor used to do the same thing. He called unbelievers "pre-Christians," implying that Christianity was a step up from unbelief.

No offense to the guy but it does not seem he understands the basics of Christianity... maybe that is why our faith also failed.

QuoteI came from a deeply religious and devout background and escaped into enlightenment

so?

QuoteI am a post-Christian. To go back to Christianity would be like a dog returning to its own vomit.

Or a rebel son spending his inheritance and returning home broke.

Quote
I'll have to have a pretty big chunk of my brain dissected before I will be lacking enough in reason to consider going back to that life.

Unless everything were true and you know without a doubt it was all true right?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 30, 2017, 12:49:53 PM
I am asking you what is it you think i am proud of? no-one cares here how badly I beat any of you. i don't talk to people outside of this forum about what goes on here. I have been doing this for a very long time, it's not new and exciting.. so what is there for me to be proud of?

No.. Pride is a sin.
Ah, no. I came here to straighten out your B/S theological assumptions and to share the truth with you. I am not a man of faith. I am a man that needs almost daily afirmation from God that i am on the right path, despite what he has done for me in the past. I have belief in God because of what He shares with me. Or in atheist speak of the evidence he has shared with me.That is the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time in a forum.
we all have faith dumb ass it's just to a matter of degree of how much we are willing to expend to net a result.

Luckily Christ said we need nothing more than a mustardseed worth to summon the power of the Holy Spirit to move mountains of doubt. If you've ever stepped on an elevator or in a plane or in a car or in anything you have not designed tested and proofed yourself you have at least that mustard seed.

Meaning all you need do is A/S/K then your a fool who does not understand that only 1/3 of the world around him can fit into this catagory, and that 'rationalist views fill in the sum total of the human experience. or you are a fool of faith... faith meaning when other atheist makes comments like this that they are on solid ground. faith that science explains everything and your beliefs are well guarded in your phrasing. The problem with that is your finite ablity to comprehend what science can and can not explain... you just have faith that it is all on par because your cell phone works most of the time and we launch rockets into space... Meanwhile back in the real world God offers you a direct audience on your own personal level and you have the nerve to say it takes too much faith.. here's the thing rincess I know it you know and God knows it... you are just trying to hide your eye away fro God in a place you know He will never stoop down to look for you in... Rather He is waiting for your return.

Since I don't have any beliefs, I don't have faith.    I think you are ignorant (and since ignorance can be fixed that's okay) and stupid (which cannot be fixed) to want atheists to show they are down with your faith.  I am not trying to shame you, for you are much to far gone in your fiction to show any shame--you, on the other hand are all about shaming the lost atheist.  That is a stock-in-trade for theist--shame; they love to use it as a club.  Basically, you came here with a message about a fiction you think is real.  I've thought this all through and did not solicit, nor want your stupidity--why would you think I would, except for your pride, arrogant stupidity????

None of my thinking about religion needs to be straightened out.  Religion and people like you, are destroyers and death bringers.  I don't need nor want your beliefs.  I don't need or want you.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 30, 2017, 07:08:09 PM
None of my thinking about religion needs to be straightened out.  Religion and people like you, are destroyers and death bringers.  I don't need nor want your beliefs.  I don't need or want you.

Not necessarily death.  Just pitifully servile to long outdated social/religious precepts or a wanton exploiter of common people's hopes and fears (of which there are many) in order to amass personal wealth/power (an ironic juxtaposition to the alleged Jesus character).  So, rube, robber baron, and/or zealot.

I'm told it's a livable condition, and individually that's true, but mankind must eventually either do away with such notions or be done away with by them.

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 30, 2017, 10:23:29 PM
Not necessarily death.  Just pitifully servile to long outdated social/religious precepts or a wanton exploiter of common people's hopes and fears (of which there are many) in order to amass personal wealth/power (an ironic juxtaposition to the alleged Jesus character).  So, rube, robber baron, and/or zealot.

I'm told it's a livable condition, and individually that's true, but mankind must eventually either do away with such notions or be done away with by them.

the 'death' part refers to the many, many wars that christians started--they gleefully deal death and destruction for their god.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 30, 2017, 10:40:59 PM
the 'death' part refers to the many, many wars that christians started--they gleefully deal death and destruction for their god.

In hoc signo vinces ... "in this sign you will conquer" ... what Constantine was given in a vision of Christ ... as a charm to defeat his opponent holding Rome.

The longevity of this thread is amazing.

Quote from: SGOS on July 01, 2017, 08:24:29 AM
The longevity of this thread is amazing.

Proof of G-d's immortality? ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on July 01, 2017, 09:21:50 AM
Proof of G-d's immortality? ;-)

I didn't know you were immortal, Baruch.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 01, 2017, 09:36:39 AM
I didn't know you were immortal, Baruch.

If you look at my profile in detail, you will see that I am operating 24x7 ... but then demigods can do that ;-))

And I eats me spinach ... because I am Baruch the Jewish man ... yechchchchch.

Drich - of what do I have to be proud? - seriously? Do you want a list of all the proud things you said in this post? I guess pride is the big sin of Drich

Baruch are you eating spinach because its healthy or because you like it? The first days of nutritional science they discovered spinach has a lot of iron and invented Popeye to sell it. But since Popeye science has figured out that we can't absorb iron from spinach very well. (maybe they should have had Popeye start eating brocoli - high in iron and more vitamin -c than orange juice)

Drich - we all have faith - I don't, I don't even know what faith is. sure we have a BS definition made by Paul but every time I hear it my answer is wtf did he just say? not talkin in English
If you want to say faith is trust in god... why should I be trusting in someone that has never proved he exists? If any god doesn't take the time to prove he or she or it exists why waste my time looking for h/s/i? maybe that god doesnt want to be found

Quote from: Baruch on July 01, 2017, 09:39:45 AM
If you look at my profile in detail, you will see that I am operating 24x7 ... but then demigods can do that ;-))

And I eats me spinach ... because I am Baruch the Jewish man ... yechchchchch.

Hercules was a demi god, and his diet had in it Ambrosia. So the true way to immorality is eating this.

(http://www.ambrosia.co.uk/images/pack.png)

Quote from: Munch on July 01, 2017, 01:27:50 PM
Hercules was a demi god, and his diet had in it Ambrosia. So the true way to immorality is eating this.

(http://www.ambrosia.co.uk/images/pack.png)

That cart on the label, is that Custard's Last Stand? ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on July 01, 2017, 02:33:30 PM
That cart on the label, is that Custard's Last Stand? ;-)

With a candle stick, in the billiard room. Wait.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 01, 2017, 04:29:59 PM
With a candle stick, in the billiard room. Wait.

I loved that game!!!

Ah the Clue game.  My Dad figured out a coded system on his clue sheets about who he showed cards to.  It was one of our regular family games.  In spite of that, I won more games than he did after I was 14.  I figured out HIS system and bettered it. 

Quote from: Cavebear on July 03, 2017, 05:02:52 AM
Ah the Clue game.  My Dad figured out a coded system on his clue sheets about who he showed cards to.  It was one of our regular family games.  In spite of that, I won more games than he did after I was 14.  I figured out HIS system and bettered it.

So ... Cavebear in the living room with the crib sheet?

Quote from: Cavebear on July 03, 2017, 05:02:52 AM
Ah the Clue game.  My Dad figured out a coded system on his clue sheets about who he showed cards to.  It was one of our regular family games.  In spite of that, I won more games than he did after I was 14.  I figured out HIS system and bettered it.

It was a staple in our house as well.  Sorry, Careers, and Risk were all played very often.

I for one am quite impressed that this toy has been chewed for 12 pages.

Quote from: Jason78 on July 03, 2017, 02:14:29 PM
I for one am quite impressed that this toy has been chewed for 12 pages.

Maybe his real name is ... Leatherface?  Aiee!

I think it's more like Featherlace...

Quote from: fencerider on July 01, 2017, 01:19:56 PM
Drich - of what do I have to be proud? - seriously? Do you want a list of all the proud things you said in this post? I guess pride is the big sin of Drich

which is what exactly... meaning where have i attributed any of this to my self or me being special? matter of fact I have gone out of my way to point out I am like everyone else. I simply followed through with wht God Gave me.

QuoteDrich - we all have faith - I don't, I don't even know what faith is.

sure you do. do you know every system and subsystem in a 787? would you still fly in a 787? Even if you did not have a full working knowledge and confidence drived from a full understanding of how this aircraft worked would you still fly in this aircraft?

Quotesure we have a BS definition made by Paul but every time I hear it my answer is wtf did he just say? not talkin in English
If you want to say faith is trust in god... why should I be trusting in someone that has never proved he exists? If any god doesn't take the time to prove he or she or it exists why waste my time looking for h/s/i? maybe that god doesnt want to be found

here Faith is trust in what other report of God. As in You built your religious efforts on the sand. God answered your prayers, knocked down your old faith, so you have a chance to build a proper one on Him and who He is in accordance to scripture rather than religion.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 05, 2017, 08:49:12 AM

sure you do. [have faith] do you know every system and subsystem in a 787? would you still fly in a 787? Even if you did not have a full working knowledge and confidence drived from a full understanding of how this aircraft worked would you still fly in this aircraft?

No, I don't have faith.  And I don't believe.  Of course I do not understand exactly how an airplane works; in general, but not every system exactly.  So what?  I can say the same about the car I drive or the house I live in.  So what?  What I do know is the track record of my car or airplane I plan to ride in.  I know that it is reasonably safe.  I know that the pilots know what they are doing.  And I think I will get from point a to point b safely and on time.  It is called trust.  I trust the auto and airplane systems to do what they been doing--and no, that is not faith.  Trust is earned from testing.  Faith is blind and needs not be earned--in fact for the theist it is best when not even attempted to be tested.  Faith and belief is not needed nor wanted in my world.  Feel free to use it in yours.

As for the pride you display--you are bursting at the seams with it.  Just about every sentence you type, your pride is dripping all over the place.  In your first couple of statements on the board, one of the first things I thought was, 'You need to get over yourself.'  And you still do.  You wear you 'humbleness' as a badge, as a 'see me, see how humble I am because I follow what god tells me to; and you to can aspire to this same humbleness.'  You are the poster child of how to be prideful.   

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 05, 2017, 09:05:48 AM
No, I don't have faith.  And I don't believe.  Of course I do not understand exactly how an airplane works; in general, but not every system exactly.  So what?

THAT Is FAITH Sport!!! fith you won't fall out of the sk, faith that tsa did it's job, faith in the mechanics and faith in the engineers, faith in the pilots faith faith faith!

QuoteI can say the same about the car I drive

Faith you don't blow a tire at hyw speeds and roll over!

Quoteor the house I live in.  So what?

FAITH!!!! Because other's like you has a simlar experience and it turned out well.

Same thing sport. You need faith and honest enough to say you got it wrong first time, and faith enough to simply take God upon His offer. or faith in those who have and can show you what He has done for them.

Quote
What I do know is the track record of my car or airplane I plan to ride in.  I know that it is reasonably safe.

So long as something out of you control says your not safe., just one of a million plus parts all of which have to be in good working order. Here if you had any idea how everythig worked you'd probably be less inclined. So here in essence less 'proof' is needed to fly. just the testimonial of others, and you are willing to literally bet your life on odd, and a machine you have no idea how it works... Yet when it comes to God where nothing is asked of you, no one even asking you to change anything you can be yourself... this is too large of a leap of faith??!?

QuoteAs for the pride you display--you are bursting at the seams with it.

but the joy in it is not ine.. Don't you get it? I am using the power the insite the gifts of God much like Christ did to those who opposed Him. Not a me thing I am proud of but I am proud of God choosing me to work with Him!

Quote
Just about every sentence you type, your pride is dripping all over the place.

Indeed pride in God is not a bad thing.. it is prie in self or other things we must watch out for.

QuoteIn your first couple of statements on the board, one of the first things I thought was, 'You need to get over yourself.'  And you still do. 

If you had your capacity access to the Holy Spirit/Meaning if you had all you could understand of God at your finger tips, not because of who you are but because you were chosen, would you too not be confident in everything you had to say and do concerning God? For me it is not a theory or a guess. I know what god has shown me. and I could not be more blessed about it. you want me to tone it down fine, then I ask you do the same.

Don't jst assume what I say is wrong just because it is different. I have to "flash" my God given authority card/study and book learn when ever someone call my intellectual capacity into question, then you all get huffy when you realize that easy way out is not available to you.

Quote
You wear you 'humbleness' as a badge, as a 'see me, see how humble I am because I follow what god tells me to; and you to can aspire to this same humbleness.'  You are the poster child of how to be prideful.

when have I ever done that? or aid that? you are just throwing cliche's at me looking to see what sticks.

I do obey God but have yet to give a single example of my obedience.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 05, 2017, 12:42:05 PM
THAT Is FAITH Sport!!! fith you won't fall out of the sk, faith that tsa did it's job, faith in the mechanics and faith in the engineers, faith in the pilots faith faith faith!  Faith you don't blow a tire at hyw speeds and roll over!
FAITH!!!! Because other's like you has a simlar experience and it turned out well.

Why don't you grow up??!!  I have 'faith' that the plane I'm in won't fall out of the sky????!!!!  You are just brainwashed (if you have a brain), blind and stupid.  Why would I need 'faith' to trust that the airplane was designed correctly, that the pilot was trained properly and that it will perform as it should.  The plane was designed using proper laws of physics--not faith a prayer.  God did not do it, mankind did using science.  Science does not need faith.  Faith does not equal trust.  Trust is earned from being tested.  One cannot trust faith--only accept it or not.

So, sport, take your theistic jargon and sit and spin with it.  Brainwash yourself all you want.  Could you learn to spell, too??? You, sport, are just so pathetic.

Oh you've got to have Faith!

That video is not available in my country.

hmmm a quick spell check and some bold to show an example from this post of Drich being too proud...

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 30, 2017, 12:02:14 PM
What is the definition of arrogance again?
ar·ro·gant
/ˈerəɡənt/

adjective

    1. having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities: "he's arrogant and opinionated"

Which brings us back to me. You call me arrogant because I seem to have all the answers and because I am no longer seeking or guessing at the truth. One understands this condition is a gift of the Holy Spirit. In essence God grants me access to his knowledge, his understanding. It does not belong to me I simply have a heavenly library card...

Your problem is you desperately need to believe there is no God or your whole world shit storms down around you. So if I claim or rather even if I can show I have knowledge of God others overlook, or can not observe, in your world view I am the one playing games. I am the one who is arrogant.

What if I'm telling the truth... What if I am just right simply because God grants me access to infinite knowledge... Can you imagine how that would empower someone? the confidence it would give them?? Not that I could begin to process it all, I simply have been invited to share in what I can grasp. but even so... my little share is a far site from what one can grasp after his attempt at Christianity fails.

Arrogant? no, not if what I say is true. remember the definition of arrogant and not just the emotion of the word. So how do you know what I say is true or not? One finds God where the Bible tells you to look or be ready to open up some old dusty books.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 05, 2017, 08:49:12 AM
sure you do. do you know every system and subsystem in a 787? would you still fly in a 787? Even if you did not have a full working knowledge and confidence drived from a full understanding of how this aircraft worked would you still fly in this aircraft?

I've only been on 2 round-trip flights; uncomfortable all the way. However I know the basic systems. Give me some aircraft aluminum and a CNC and I'll make you an airframe as soon as I figure out the machine. Give me the steel-alloy and I'll crank out the jet after that. ( bad choice on your part) There definitely wasn't any faith going on when I was flying. I was awake every minute of a 7hr red-eye flight to Quito.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 05, 2017, 08:49:12 AM
here Faith is trust in what other report of God. As in You built your religious efforts on the sand. God answered your prayers, knocked down your old faith, so you have a chance to build a proper one on Him and who He is in accordance to scripture rather than religion.

that is enlightening... try again professor
What does now faith is the evidence of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen mean in English?

You are missing the argument Drich is making.  He is pulling the old argument claiming that if a tornado sweeping through a junkyard can't assemble a something as complex as a 747, how could evolution make a human...

The refutation is that the screws and bolts of a 747 aren't self-assembling the way chemistry is.  It's the watchmaker argument updated.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 04:04:26 AM
You are missing the argument Dritch is making.  He is pulling the old argument claiming that if a tornado sweeping through a junkyard can't assemble a something as complex as a 747, how could evolution make a human...

The refutation is that the screws and bolts of a 747 aren't self-assembling the way chemistry is.  It's the watchmaker argument updated.

Correct.  The first watchmaker argument dates to before there were watches.  At least 1000 years old, and it is still invalid (in the context of materialism).  The argument only works for theism, if you are a closet theist to begin with ... which Drich clearly showed over time, over time he showed he was deliberately deceptive.  Usually I assign that to the Devil, not to G-d.

Materialists must presuppose "There is no alternative" or "epiphenomenalism" which is scientism, not science.  Everyone has closet belief systems.  Not to say that materialism is wrong, only that atheists, as humans, same as theists ... produce mostly ape poo.  Some of us produce bear poo ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 05, 2017, 03:02:39 PM
Why don't you grow up??!!  I have 'faith' that the plane I'm in won't fall out of the sky????!!!!

How is this an unreasonable assumption??? or have you blindly by faith just accepted the general sentiment about flying?? there are on a good year 1 crash every two days, and in bad years there can bad as many as 10! crashes every year.
http://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report

QuoteYou are just brainwashed (if you have a brain), blind and stupid.

said the man who posted no numbers or reference material of any kind... just his thoughts and 'feelings.'

QuoteWhy would I need 'faith' to trust that the airplane was designed correctly,

because no one system or team of designers can foresee whats 1000s of hours will do to parts over time.
Every contingency can not be planned for.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/why-boeings-787-dreamliner-such-piece-crap

There's also 10,000 pages of service bulitens and emergency recalls in addition to what was posted here. all based on adnormal or unexpected parts wear or failure.

You are simply too naive to know how much faith is required to step on a plane.

Quotethat the pilot was trained properly and that it will perform as it should.  The plane was designed using proper laws of physics--not faith a prayer.

Says someone who has never maintained an aircraft.

QuoteGod did not do it, mankind did using science.

actually math and trial and error sport. Science didn't come in till after a sucessful model could be tested. or so say the two bike mechanics who pioneered the process.

Quote
Science does not need faith.

Science IS Faith.

QuoteFaith does not equal trust.

No one said it needs to. maybe you do not even understand the term faith and where it is sourced...

QuoteTrust is earned from being tested.  One cannot trust faith--only accept it or not.

So, sport, take your theistic jargon and sit and spin with it.  Brainwash yourself all you want.  Could you learn to spell, too??? You, sport, are just so pathetic.

again says the man who have me take all that he says by faith as he left not citations nor reference material to support his position... How ironic is that? the man who argues for the use of the tiniest bit of faith and only at the beginning before God fill his coffers with proof, provides vetted facts in his argument, while the man who demands to know no faith requires it from his readers, as nothing he says is supported by anything.

Quote from: fencerider on July 06, 2017, 02:34:27 AM
hmmm a quick spell check and some bold to show an example from this post of Drich being too proud...

or dyslexic, so when he clicks on a word and the word he is looking for does not appear he has to move on.

QuoteI've only been on 2 round-trip flights; uncomfortable all the way. However I know the basic systems. Give me some aircraft aluminum and a CNC and I'll make you an airframe as soon as I figure out the machine. Give me the steel-alloy and I'll crank out the jet after that. ( bad choice on your part) There definitely wasn't any faith going on when I was flying. I was awake every minute of a 7hr red-eye flight to Quito.

The fact that you got on the plan shows a reluctant faith. If you knew this plan was your death then you would have fought to the death to be placed on the plane.

Quote
that is enlightening... try again professor

Unless you were MR.T-ed onto that plane (bound and drugged) you went on faith that you would survive the trip. Even if you held objections to it.

Quote
What does now faith is the evidence of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen mean in English?

Basically it means you trust in the word and experiences of others that it will be delivered (what was promised the H/S) to you as it was to them.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 04:04:26 AM
You are missing the argument Drich is making.  He is pulling the old argument claiming that if a tornado sweeping through a junkyard can't assemble a something as complex as a 747, how could evolution make a human...

The refutation is that the screws and bolts of a 747 aren't self-assembling the way chemistry is.  It's the watchmaker argument updated.

Glob...

No. I am not. I never mentioned a 747 nor do I object to evolution. please see my evolution/creation thread.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 06, 2017, 09:01:32 AMScience IS Faith.

(https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1380429757ra/861152.gif)

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!  *dies laughing*

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 06, 2017, 09:47:01 AM
(https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1380429757ra/861152.gif)

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!  *dies laughing*

Yeah, I love it when theists claim science is a faith.  It shows the limitations of their thoughts.  I mostly just give the door-bangers a few facts that challenge their faith but are easily proven.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 06, 2017, 09:47:01 AM
(https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1380429757ra/861152.gif)

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!  *dies laughing*

It's funny. Every Christian like Drich does the same thing. They want to believe that atheists are the same as theists because that justifies their faith. And in order to do that, they always try to sneak in a change of definition to make two different things equal. Every time this discussion comes up, the theist is trying to make 1+1=5.

Drich is so obviously trying to convert the 'brain dead' atheists to his view of christianity; and it is starkly clear that he has no capacity to see reason or to think.  I think I'm done with the guy.  He is beyond repair.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 06, 2017, 11:48:50 AM
It's funny. Every Christian like Drich does the same thing. They want to believe that atheists are the same as theists because that justifies their faith. And in order to do that, they always try to sneak in a change of definition to make two different things equal. Every time this discussion comes up, the theist is trying to make 1+1=5.

To paraphrase Tolstoy, "All theists are the same, all atheists are different".

Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 12:07:40 PM
To paraphrase Tolstoy, "All theists are the same, all atheists are different".

(https://media.makeameme.org/created/if-all-people-595e74.jpg)

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 06, 2017, 01:34:01 PM
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/if-all-people-595e74.jpg)

Well, I mainly read theist posts and you could change out names among several and I couldn't tell the difference.  But every atheist I meet seems different from the others.  I suppose if I was a theist it might seem the reverse, but that it hard to imagine.  We all seem to approach atheism is different ways and from different causes.

But to a T Rex, all small mammals were just squeaky snacks!

Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 01:39:29 PM
Well, I mainly read theist posts and you could change out names among several and I couldn't tell the difference.  But every atheist I meet seems different from the others.  I suppose if I was a theist it might seem the reverse, but that it hard to imagine.  We all seem to approach atheism is different ways and from different causes.

But to a T Rex, all small mammals were just squeaky snacks!

I don't stereotype ... so unique people are unique in all forms.  No two theists are alike, no two atheists are alike.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 11:28:24 AM
Yeah, I love it when theists claim science is a faith.  It shows the limitations of their thoughts.  I mostly just give the door-bangers a few facts that challenge their faith but are easily proven.

Then please explain how it is not faith based.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 06, 2017, 11:48:50 AM
It's funny. Every Christian like Drich does the same thing. They want to believe that atheists are the same as theists because that justifies their faith. And in order to do that, they always try to sneak in a change of definition to make two different things equal. Every time this discussion comes up, the theist is trying to make 1+1=5.

Then I challenge you as well please explain how science is not faith based, I'll even start you out with a solid defination.


n.
"duty of fulfilling one's trust," from Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence, pledge," from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE root *bheidh- (cf. Greek pistis ; see bid ). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from late 14c.; religions called faiths since c.1300.

In short FAITH Is to believe, trust, to have confidence without full knowledge in something.

Tell me you have full knowledge in every aspect of science and the argument ends... If you don't you have Faith in those field of science that you yourself did not extrapolate a peer approved working theory from. Your 'Faith' is in the work of others is as strong if not stronger than what you assume to be true.

But here's the thing sport.

Science is ever changing. Truth never changes. that means science is based on fact not truth. Fact being a provable or disprovable not absolute truth. if Your 'precious" was based on the truth, then yes you could say you need no faith, but because your 'precious' is ever changing (because new facts userpt old ones) your faith lies in the idea that the current theories are indeed truth. Meaning you can treat others who challenging these facts as challenging the 'truth.' when again they are only facts.

point in case global warming. anyone who challenges these 20 year old facts with all of what science knew of Global warming with the 500 years of collective data we have before this 25 year old theory told us the sky is falling, is treated like he objects to the truth... Again even if he presents 500 years of theory and data the world accepted before they sold their souls to al gore, and the catsup empire.

PURE faith in the data make 'global warming due to carbon emissions a 'inconvenient truth.'

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 06, 2017, 12:03:32 PM
Drich is so obviously trying to convert the 'brain dead' atheists to his view of christianity; and it is starkly clear that he has no capacity to see reason or to think.  I think I'm done with the guy.  He is beyond repair.

Can you cut and paste an example where you uesed/expended any planned critical thinking on any think I said. Don't get being critical/doubtful as a critical thinking skill. Show me where you observed question and compared to known fact.

If you can't how then can you honestly make this claim?

Quote from: Cavebear on July 06, 2017, 01:39:29 PM
Well, I mainly read theist posts and you could change out names among several and I couldn't tell the difference.  But every atheist I meet seems different from the others.  I suppose if I was a theist it might seem the reverse, but that it hard to imagine.  We all seem to approach atheism is different ways and from different causes.

But to a T Rex, all small mammals were just squeaky snacks!

Do you have an example where my posts are like other theist posts... oh, that's right you claim not to actually be reading posts... no wonder they all seem the same to yo... you pay no attention and just keep circling the same retoric over and over hoping to sell this stroke as high end logical thinking.

I think you have a few who are ntrested in your 'thinking process.' The just spout generalizations atheist ALways say about Christians and put my name inplaceof the word Christian..

See I'm good for business

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 06, 2017, 11:48:50 AM
Every time this discussion comes up, the theist is trying to make 1+1=5.

Yeah, or 1+1+1=1 :headscratch:

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 06, 2017, 04:27:32 PMIn short FAITH Is to believe, trust, to have confidence without full knowledge in something.

That's an extremely broad definition, which coincidentally is bandied about by apologists seeking to place their faith that a guy walked on water and cured the sick merely by touch because they read about it in a holy book on the same footing as NASA mission control during the moon landing.

It doesn't take a genius to notice a bit of semantic trickery afoot, since believing in things without evidence is worlds apart from having high confidence in something with a solid track record and every appearance of working as intended.  In fact, those things are pretty much polar opposites of each other.

QuoteTell me you have full knowledge in every aspect of science and the argument ends

Hmmm...omniscience or faith.  What an intriguing false dilemma.  I'm just going to carefully step over..*crunch*...well, it's broken.  Couldn't even withstand light scrutiny.

QuoteScience is ever changing. Truth never changes. that means science is based on fact not truth. Fact being a provable or disprovable not absolute truth.

Hence the ongoing devaluation of Truth(TM), particularly "Truth" as propagated by religious organizations - people who couldn't possibly know the validity of the claims they're making and therefore have to compensate with deep conviction, as if that'll make up for it.

Scientific "truth" is provisional for the most part.  A few statements, like 2+2=4 or a circle has no straight lines are necessarily true.  But If I were to say that the solar system has 9 planets, that wouldn't necessarily be the case because one could always discover another one or downgrade the status of an existing one.  This is not a bad thing.  In fact, this ability to self-correct is one of the main reasons science is useful and religion is useless.

Quotepoint in case global warming. anyone who challenges these 20 year old facts with all of what science knew of Global warming with the 500 years of collective data we have before this 25 year old theory told us the sky is falling, is treated like he objects to the truth... Again even if he presents 500 years of theory and data the world accepted before they sold their souls to al gore, and the catsup empire.

PURE faith in the data make 'global warming due to carbon emissions a 'inconvenient truth.'

Haha.  Global warming denialist, now there's a shocking development.  I love how susceptible people are to believing everything but reality.

1 (man) + 1 (woman) = 5 (in the family)

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 06, 2017, 05:03:23 PM
That's an extremely broad definition, which coincidentally is bandied about by apologists seeking to place their faith that a guy walked on water and cured the sick merely by touch because they read about it in a holy book on the same footing as NASA mission control during the moon landing.

I have/Had family @ NASA durning those days. the moon landing 90% math we knew 0 about the moon all speculation so that leaves propulsion/rocket. which is 50%  math, 20%metallurgy, 5% thermodynamics, 20%chemistry 5%"electronics"

So no, not the same at all as no faith is required in believing in a God willing to directly interact with you.

QuoteIt doesn't take a genius to notice a bit of semantic trickery afoot, since believing in things without evidence is worlds apart from having high confidence in something with a solid track record and every appearance of working as intended.

Are you kidding me??? the world around many say the moon landing never happened. Not one of them but because people know what little 'science' we have vested in the moon landing to them makes it seem impossible. The more you understand about the 1960 space program the more you get the feeling that there was a 10 year span of time where the government threw every spare dollar into makeing this work and by LUCK it did! Go through the national space museum At nasa whatch the old guys talk about how they did thing by the seat of their pants... Not science, but guesstimate and math with a billion dollar backing is the only reason we made it to the moon.

Yet God simply says Ask, seek and knock till you find me, and I will give you a mesure of the Holy Spirit! God the Father Send God the Spirit to interact with you. So in essence God is the proof you get of God!

What proof of the moon landing do we have? grainy footage many say was filmed on a sound stage because this moon dream was bankrupting the country.

QuoteIn fact, those things are pretty much polar opposites of each other.

indeed once you critically look at what you are actually getting for proof... One one hand GOD Himself establishes and maintains a relationship with you.

on the other we get a fuzzy black and white video from the moon when/at a time most people could not get a tv signal from a tv station located more than 10 miles away.

Again not saying it didn't happen. I'm just point out the quality of evidence and the fact that despite how shaky it is I have FAITH in the moon landing like most of you d-bags do yet will not admit it no matter how shaky the evidence is.

QuoteHmmm...omniscience or faith.  What an intriguing false dilemma.  I'm just going to carefully step over..*crunch*...well, it's broken.  Couldn't even withstand light scrutiny.

Again the moonlanding was topped shelfed in the realm f 'science' meaning not many people had access to it/the program or the data it produced, therefore it was never meant to be scrutinized as critically as your relationship with God will be. As God will send the winds and rain to test every aspect of your beliefs right down to the core... till your questioning your own consciousness. That said that is why I have faith in the moon landing and I believe in God. but again it is ok for me to say that despite the shaky evidence that you pointed out will not stand up to severe scrutiny.

Quote
Hence the ongoing devaluation of Truth(TM), particularly "Truth" as propagated by religious organizations - people who couldn't possibly know the validity of the claims they're making and therefore have to compensate with deep conviction, as if that'll make up for it.

says a douche who is holding p the single greatest example of "faith in science" that 'science' has ever demanded from soceity. a moon landing despite all the logistical lack of technology to even venture outside the earth protective magnetic shielding, let alone the fuel calculation out there that say based on rocket engine efficiency and fuel capacity of the saturn 5 there was only 2/3rds the rocket assembly could carry despite what was needed. meaning they according to some, could not have made it back home if they indeed made it to the moon... but again my faith in my family who worked at nasa durning those years and years after carries me on, I believe despite what other may say, no matter how or what evidence provided. as I have faith in the space program. As apparently you do too!

QuoteScientific "truth" is provisional for the most part.

Bwahahaha

QuoteA few statements, like 2+2=4 or a circle has no straight lines are necessarily true.

Not a scientific fact sport those are mathematical truths.

QuoteBut If I were to say that the solar system has 9 planets, that wouldn't necessarily be the case because one could always discover another one or downgrade the status of an existing one.  This is not a bad thing.  In fact, this ability to self-correct is one of the main reasons science is useful and religion is useless.

but this ever changing truth is what qualifies 'science' as an excercise in faith, IF you consider scientific fact to be the equivalent to scientific truth.

Quote
Haha.  Global warming denialist, now there's a shocking development.  I love how susceptible people are to believing everything but reality.

Perfect example of a foolish person taking a fact as truth but says he has no faith in these facts.

1) I didn't say the planet is not warming it is evident and there is 500 years of data to support this.

2) what I am saying is it takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe al gore's version of what the planet is warming over the 500 years of original study that the earth shared.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 07, 2017, 08:57:02 AM
I have/Had family @ NASA durning those days.

(http://m.quickmeme.com/img/df/dffcffafd0a72f2b81eadee4596062da1aef20e57af92e991ae3a6a4df7880f9.jpg)

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 07, 2017, 11:09:17 AM
(http://m.quickmeme.com/img/df/dffcffafd0a72f2b81eadee4596062da1aef20e57af92e991ae3a6a4df7880f9.jpg)

Actually I own a dealership..
(and a few other businesses) Thanks to the Lord and All He has done for me.

An oil man, in California, started modern Christian Fundamentalism ... 100 years ago.  Who made him Pope?

And no, you don't talk like a rocket scientist ... not that you needed to.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 07, 2017, 08:57:02 AM
I have/Had family @ NASA durning those days. the moon landing 90% math we knew 0 about the moon all speculation so that leaves propulsion/rocket. which is 50%  math, 20%metallurgy, 5% thermodynamics, 20%chemistry 5%"electronics"

lol, sounds legit.

QuoteAre you kidding me???

Whew.  If you agreed with me there, I probably made some critical mistake.

Quotethe world around many say the moon landing never happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

QuoteNot one of them but because people know what little 'science' we have vested in the moon landing to them makes it seem impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy

I suggest upgrading to the latest version of reality.  In this version, space exploration no longer strains credulity to the breaking point.

QuoteThe more you understand about the 1960 space program the more you get the feeling that there was a 10 year span of time where the government threw every spare dollar into makeing this work and by LUCK it did!

Luck, huh?  Katherine Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Johnson) will be delighted to know that she didn't have to show up to work for decades to calculate launch trajectories - sheer dumb luck was really made this stuff happen, not painstaking work and technical know-how.

QuoteYet God simply says Ask, seek and knock till you find me, and I will give you a mesure of the Holy Spirit! God the Father Send God the Spirit to interact with you. So in essence God is the proof you get of God!

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bfXyepE_1tk/UODUqLzFZxI/AAAAAAAACfg/wB95Wja1r2c/s320/11+Danger+circular+argument.jpg)

QuoteWhat proof of the moon landing do we have? grainy footage many say was filmed on a sound stage ecause this moon dream was bankrupting the country.
indeed once you critically look at what you are actually getting for proof... One one hand GOD Himself establishes and maintains a relationship with you.

on the other we get a fuzzy black and white video from the moon when/at a time most people could not get a tv signal from a tv station located more than 10 miles away.

I'm getting an Alex Jones vibe here...

Quote1) I didn't say the planet is not warming it is evident and there is 500 years of data to support this.

2) what I am saying is it takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe al gore's version of what the planet is warming over the 500 years of original study that the earth shared.

So...denialism lite?  Is that really any better?

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 08, 2017, 12:04:37 AM
lol, sounds legit.
Whew.  If you agreed with me there, I probably made some critical mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy

Leaving a quote with no explanation =/= responding to an argument let alone refuting one. how about dragging your intellect lazy arse up to the table and rub a few synapses together and see if you can't form an idea or two with the raw material you just pooped all over my thread.

Quote
I suggest upgrading to the latest version of reality.  In this version, space exploration no longer strains credulity to the breaking point.

Hey Retard,
YOUR EXAMPLE OF THE 1969 MOON LANDING FRAMES THE FRIGGEN TIME FRAME IN WHICH WE ARE DISCUSSING!!! A TIME WHERE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS ALL ABOT FAITH!!!!! You got caught using a very bad analogy suck it up take the hit like a man and concede the point lost

Because again in 1969 Space was a faith based business

Quote
Luck, huh?  Katherine Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Johnson) will be delighted to know that she didn't have to show up to work for decades to calculate launch trajectories - sheer dumb luck was really made this stuff happen, not painstaking work and technical know-how.

Hey F*cking MORON how did I start my last thread to you? when you said the space program was all "science" I split your science down I said the launch was at least 50% math... What category do you think course trajectories fall under? Thermodynamics????
ITS MATH MORON!!!! M-A-T-H.....

1/2 the program was based on math.. So where does luck come in?
the mechanical execution, system performance, unforeseen system failures unforeseen events (like the build up of condensation in certain electronic, or the cryo motor failure that blew out on Apollo 13 It is LUCK that over a million SYSTEMS Not just parts (as one system could contain 100K parts) on the ground and in scape had to work flawlessly in 1969!!!

Quote
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bfXyepE_1tk/UODUqLzFZxI/AAAAAAAACfg/wB95Wja1r2c/s320/11+Danger+circular+argument.jpg)
I'm getting an Alex Jones vibe here...
So...denialism lite?  Is that really any better?

Again no. I have faith we went to the moon. Why because my uncle and cousin both testify to their roles in the programs they were involved in at the time.

Do you see blind man? I am allowed to have faith, so I can say we went to the moon based on what I believe to be true. You can't. because the evidence does not support such an assertion. The fact that the radiation shielding was not avaible till 1980 tells me you can not believe in a 1969 moon landing... that is unless you too have faith in science and those who worked on the project.. But then again that destroys your whole B/S line about science is apart from faith.

I worked for 10 years in Aerospace, including things that went up into space.  You don't sound like a rocket scientist to me ... but then you don't claim to be one either.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 09, 2017, 03:01:33 PM


ITS MATH MORON!!!! M-A-T-H.....

says the moron who preaches that the universe is because of a grand designer, a "naturalistic" designer of great power and knowledge......but admits that 2/3rds of the stars fell to the earth,,,,with no apparent repurcussions...that the sun went backward.....that the sun and universe revolves around the earth....that mankind can summon the power of the almighty to alter the physical face of the earth....that the almighty has a secret garden still hidden on earth protected by sword swinging cherubs....somewhere...out there....that the tree of knowledge is still out there...somewhere....and that above all else..god thinks that a bloody pussy is "unclean" and needs to be set out in the wilderness...less it infects others...and that anyone who "sticks" said pussy should be killed...

Yeah.... you got us really interested in your whack-a-doo babb-a-doo.....mop head

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 09, 2017, 03:01:33 PMhow about dragging your intellect lazy arse up to the table and rub a few synapses together and see if you can't form an idea or two with the raw material you just pooped all over my thread.

Was that supposed to be ironic?

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 09, 2017, 10:00:34 PM
Was that supposed to be ironic?

Nah.  Just typical theistic stupidity.

Quote from: aitm on July 09, 2017, 09:51:52 PM
says the moron who preaches that the universe is because of a grand designer, a "naturalistic" designer of great power and knowledge......but admits that 2/3rds of the stars fell to the earth,,,,with no apparent repurcussions...that the sun went backward.....that the sun and universe revolves around the earth....that mankind can summon the power of the almighty to alter the physical face of the earth....that the almighty has a secret garden still hidden on earth protected by sword swinging cherubs....somewhere...out there....that the tree of knowledge is still out there...somewhere....and that above all else..god thinks that a bloody pussy is "unclean" and needs to be set out in the wilderness...less it infects others...and that anyone who "sticks" said pussy should be killed...

Yeah.... you got us really interested in your whack-a-doo babb-a-doo.....mop head

Non sequitor

Please do and try and stay on topic. The conversation went from me proclaiming the in 1969 rocket science was 50% math... Then you or someone on your level made the assertion that I claim trajectories were just luck.. It then correct. Then you menstrated the above thoughts all over my thread. If you want to talk about your bloody pussy i do ask you start another thread. Or just troll some place else. Or is that what admins do on this website? hide behind authority and troll christian members???

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 07, 2017, 11:09:17 AM
(http://m.quickmeme.com/img/df/dffcffafd0a72f2b81eadee4596062da1aef20e57af92e991ae3a6a4df7880f9.jpg)

I wonder if Christians take their cars to faith mechanics and pray for them to be fixed by their God?

QuoteYet God simply says Ask, seek and knock till you find me, and I will give you a mesure of the Holy Spirit! God the Father Send God the Spirit to interact with you. So in essence God is the proof you get of God!

Can God really be found by those who seek him?

Quote from: Psalm 18:41They cried, but there was none to save them: even unto the LORD, but he answered them not

Quote from: Proverbs 1:28Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

Quote from: Lamentations 3:8Also when I cry and shout, he shutteth out my prayer.

Quote from: Lamentations 3:44
Thou hast covered thyself with a cloud, that our prayer should not pass through.

Quote from: Luke 13:24Strive to enter in at the straight gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Apparently, the answer is a big fat NO!

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 10, 2017, 04:31:10 PM

Can God really be found by those who seek him?


Apparently, the answer is a big fat NO!

Of course not moron.

The command was to Ask Seek And Knock not just seek

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 09, 2017, 03:01:33 PM
Hey F*cking MORON how did I start my last thread to you? when you said the space program was all "science" I split your science down I said the launch was at least 50% math... What category do you think course trajectories fall under? Thermodynamics????
ITS MATH MORON!!!! M-A-T-H.....

Trajectories fall under "celestial mechanics." There are some fields of science that are quite math-heavy. Celestial mechanics is one. Here's another:

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nintchdbpict0002638694281.jpg?w=960&strip=all)

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 09, 2017, 03:01:33 PM
the mechanical execution, system performance, unforeseen system failures unforeseen events (like the build up of condensation in certain electronic, or the cryo motor failure that blew out on Apollo 13 It is LUCK that over a million SYSTEMS Not just parts (as one system could contain 100K parts) on the ground and in scape had to work flawlessly in 1969!!!

You do know that there's this thing called "redundancy," right? Despite your bluster, these millions of parts did NOT have to work flawlessly, because they were redundant systems â€" the fact that there were millions of parts was partially to ensure that enough of it did work properly to get men to the moon. There was tolerance for failure.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 09, 2017, 03:01:33 PM

QuoteHey F*cking MORON

awww....dirchy baby is losing his grip....too much sciency stuff for a babble thumper

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 10, 2017, 09:21:36 PMYou do know that there's this thing called "redundancy," right? Despite your bluster, these millions of parts did NOT have to work flawlessly, because they were redundant systems â€" the fact that there were millions of parts was partially to ensure that enough of it did work properly to get men to the moon. There was tolerance for failure.

Yeah.  The manned mission that landed on the moon was Apollo 13, the 7th manned mission in the program and the manned mission that popularized the phrase "Houston, we've had a problem here".

The equipment didn't "work flawlessly", nor was its success attributable to luck (that idea insults the huge amount of painstaking work and knowledge that went into the program).

TL;DR - OP is a bundle of sticks and doesn't understand the "scape" program.

Space shuttle had three flight computers ... each less powerful than a smart phone today ... anyway, two out of three had to come to the same result, a majority vote, for things to go forward.  It could tolerate one of three computers, out of whack.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 10, 2017, 04:18:21 PM
I wonder if Christians take their cars to faith mechanics and pray for them to be fixed by their God?

In Japan, you take your new car the the local Buddhist priest, to have it prayed for against accidents ;-)

My basic argument against religion is that it is revelatory in nature and faith-based, therefore immune to change.  While science is never sure but is provisional.  Theists point to that and think science has no foundation.  But science is more a method of factual thinking, but a set of ideas.

Theists point to science changing as some evidence of unvalidity.  But, in reality, science doesn't change that much in terms of basic discoveries.  F=M*A, atoms exist, the Earth is a sphere, etc.  The ideas on the fringes are always subject to change, but those are just ideas being tested and questioned.  Religion has no testing process. 

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 10, 2017, 04:18:21 PM
I wonder if Christians take their cars to faith mechanics and pray for them to be fixed by their God?

Funny you should ask

I was asked to put on a timming belt on my sisters nissan v6 pathfinder or something.. Got it all down and it was a double over head cam set up and when I went to release the old belt the right cam went left a few degrees the right inner when left a feww degrees and the same thing happened on the other head.. No biggy I figured I'll just look up the marks and reset everything again. Problem was I spent an hour looking for the crank mark... No dice. Googled it.. turns out there was a casting problem in the timming cover for the first 500 cars made that year with my particular engine set up.

That means besides a complete tear down there was no way to fix this. So I prayed over this thing explained to God what I was doing and why it needed to be done. so I was staring at the cam gears and saw the first one literally move (Which takes a great effort as you are fighting the valve springs) something like three teeth to the right, the next one like one click/tooth to the left and so on till all 4 cams had moved and moved back. so I wrote it all down set each one by hand to what I saw move. put the rest of the car together and it fired right up no spit no sputter the very first time.

This was amazing as anyone who has worked on a non interference motor will tell you the timing has to be spot on or it will destroy the motor.

So yeah.. I've prayed over many a motor and prayed for a "healing."

Quote from: Baruch on July 10, 2017, 11:42:30 PM
In Japan, you take your new car the the local Buddhist priest, to have it prayed for against accidents ;-)

Ha! Does insurance cover that?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 10, 2017, 09:21:36 PM
Trajectories fall under "celestial mechanics." There are some fields of science that are quite math-heavy. Celestial mechanics is one. Here's another:

(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nintchdbpict0002638694281.jpg?w=960&strip=all)
You do know that there's this thing called "redundancy," right? Despite your bluster, these millions of parts did NOT have to work flawlessly, because they were redundant systems â€" the fact that there were millions of parts was partially to ensure that enough of it did work properly to get men to the moon. There was tolerance for failure.

Oh, so that's how it works huh? I guess Unk was lying when he said the saturn V was not built with safty in mind, that they were when he said they weren't back up with redundant systems and sub systems like space craft today. that everything they used was heavy and took up alot of space, and often time they were lucky to have one of something let alone two or three. Then He pointed out the failure of "Modular redundancy" when two systems were required instead of just one.. Modular redundancy means that the parts in redundant system were not compatible. (I figured you should be given that definition because you are too F-ing intellectually lazy to look it up yourself, because if you weren't you would have been able to come up with the guidance system being the only redundant system on the saturn V launch system.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19670057221
http://www.klabs.org/DEI/fault_tolerance/apollo/moore_67.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch4-4.html

Why do you think we didn't actually do an attempted moon landing till the 11th apollo Mission?

BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY BACK UP AND EACH PHASE OF THE MISSION HAD TO BE TESTED ON IT'S OWN SO 11 Previous missions to Test each major change or Phase of the moon landing, verse 1st mission test flight of the shuttle because the shuttle had 5 back up computers!!!

Quote from: aitm on July 10, 2017, 09:30:28 PM
Quote from: Drich0150 on July 09, 2017, 03:01:33 PMawww....dirchy baby is losing his grip....too much sciency stuff for a babble thumper

No I just like to point out how stupid some of you are. On your own terms. besides I am not someone who abhores cussing. "harsh language" was not something Christ Himself was a shamed of and neither am I.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 10, 2017, 09:39:07 PM
Yeah.  The manned mission that landed on the moon was Apollo 13, the 7th manned mission in the program and the manned mission that popularized the phrase "Houston, we've had a problem here".

The equipment didn't "work flawlessly", nor was its success attributable to luck (that idea insults the huge amount of painstaking work and knowledge that went into the program).

TL;DR - OP is a bundle of sticks and doesn't understand the "scape" program.

No, apollo 11, 12 made it to the moon, 13 partially exploded into space because there wasn't a redundant cryo stir motor, they recovered, and yes a lot of hard work went into their recovery but hard work does not compensate for the intangables. like upon the restart of the lander (without heat) condensation built up. The wiring of the lander was not water tight.. IT WAS DUMB LUCK or GOD if you like that keep them from staring a fire in an oxygen rich enviroment like that. Or a thousand other things, like Luck the Heat shield did not crack upon the explosion of the oxygen tank or luck the chutes were not ripped up or damaged by the scrapmatal or luck that the explosion did not take out more primary or sub systems (As apposed to back ups)

Quote from: Baruch on July 10, 2017, 11:41:39 PM
Space shuttle had three flight computers ... each less powerful than a smart phone today ... anyway, two out of three had to come to the same result, a majority vote, for things to go forward.  It could tolerate one of three computers, out of whack.

Uh no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzgk-L34yjo

As I said before there were 5 not 3 computers on the very first shuttle. 4 programmed exactly the same and one no frills back up with the basic telemetry that allowed for a safe take off and landing.

https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch4-4.html

Quote from: Cavebear on July 11, 2017, 06:59:35 AM
My basic argument against religion is that it is revelatory in nature and faith-based, therefore immune to change.  While science is never sure but is provisional.  Theists point to that and think science has no foundation.  But science is more a method of factual thinking, but a set of ideas.

Theists point to science changing as some evidence of unvalidity.  But, in reality, science doesn't change that much in terms of basic discoveries.  F=M*A, atoms exist, the Earth is a sphere, etc.  The ideas on the fringes are always subject to change, but those are just ideas being tested and questioned.  Religion has no testing process.

Glob..
Apples and oranges. Religion is not an academic study. it is a methodology in which we can sever God first then man.

Science is not a living philosphy it is a guestimation of how, why what, based on limited data or it would neve change as well.

Now if you take the conflict between What God said and what we currently say science says then you have two very different subjects.

With the OP 90% of the contradiction is now Gone.

And like I do, I have made lots of money understanding and aply practical science in my everyday work, but at the same time can also worship God and have it not conflict with anything I know to be true in science.

Only the descendant of a foolish monkey/man (one the flood did not get) could not reconcile the two with what I have placed in the OP

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 11, 2017, 05:02:54 PM
No I just like to point out how stupid some of you are.

or you simply can't handle the truth.

Quote from: Baruch on July 10, 2017, 11:41:39 PM
Space shuttle had three flight computers ... each less powerful than a smart phone today ... anyway, two out of three had to come to the same result, a majority vote, for things to go forward.  It could tolerate one of three computers, out of whack.

I thought it was 4. If one didn't agree and the rest did, that computer automatically shut-down.

Well technology has advanced so far that I would say that the avg smart phone could simultaneously launch 4 Saturn V rockets or 2-3 Space Shuttle, if someone wrote the software

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 11, 2017, 04:47:35 PM
Ha! Does insurance cover that?

Japanese saying ... "Why are Japanese drivers so good?"  ... "Because all the bad ones are dead!"

Quote from: aitm on July 11, 2017, 07:44:30 PM
or you simply can't handle the truth.

Seriously?!?! look at this page alone. and show me where I am wrong! Then look at how many times I have corrected some of the members on your own homefield topic of space exploration WITH CITATION to back up what I said.

Show me one example of where I was wrong please.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 11, 2017, 04:57:54 PM
Oh, so that's how it works huh? I guess Unk was lying when he said the saturn V was not built with safty in mind, that they were when he said they weren't back up with redundant systems and sub systems like space craft today.

If he said that, then yes, he was lying or just didn't know. Sure, there was some risk involved, but they were going to the fucking moon. Of course there was some risk involved. They did have redundancies, and what little that wasn't redundant was built to very high engineering quality. That's why the Saturn V was so expensive. You could literally buy every Veryon Supersport on the planet with handsome change left over for the cost of a single Apollo launch (at today's prices).

Quote from: Drich0150
that everything they used was heavy and took up alot of space, and often time they were lucky to have one of something let alone two or three.

Well, certainly the tanks didn't have redundancy, but they were built to high standards.

Quote from: Drich0150
Then He pointed out the failure of "Modular redundancy" when two systems were required instead of just one.. Modular redundancy means that the parts in redundant system were not compatible. (I figured you should be given that definition because you are too F-ing intellectually lazy to look it up yourself, because if you weren't you would have been able to come up with the guidance system being the only redundant system on the saturn V launch system.

Redundancy doesn't mean "two or more of everything," you fucking idiot. It means that even in a catestrophic accident (like what happened on Apollo 13), there were contingencies and backups for what might go wrong to get the crew back safely. The LEM served as a lifeboat on 13. It counts as a redundant system.

Quote from: Drich0150
Why do you think we didn't actually do an attempted moon landing till the 11th apollo Mission?

Because they were testing the systems through Apollo 10.

Quote from: Drich0150
BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY BACK UP AND EACH PHASE OF THE MISSION HAD TO BE TESTED ON IT'S OWN SO 11 Previous missions to Test each major change or Phase of the moon landing, verse 1st mission test flight of the shuttle because the shuttle had 5 back up computers!!!

Well, wouldn't you want to test the systems before going through with the full mission, you fucking nimrod?

Quote from: Baruch on July 12, 2017, 02:20:45 AM
Japanese saying ... "Why are Japanese drivers so good?"  ... "Because all the bad ones are dead!"

Okinawan saying: You karate Do yes, ok. You Karate do no, ok too. You karate "maybe/I guess," you squish just like grape.

Quote from: Baruch on July 12, 2017, 02:20:45 AM
Japanese saying ... "Why are Japanese drivers so good?"  ... "Because all the bad ones are dead!"

Natural selection at work!

:steeringwheel:

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 12, 2017, 10:46:04 AM
If he said that, then yes, he was lying or just didn't know. Sure, there was some risk involved, but they were going to the fucking moon. Of course there was some risk involved. They did have redundancies, and what little that wasn't redundant was built to very high engineering quality. That's why the Saturn V was so expensive. You could literally buy every Veryon Supersport on the planet with handsome change left over for the cost of a single Apollo launch (at today's prices).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_asNhzXq72w

an intellectual discussion Doesn't work that way sport.. I make an assertion and then back it with no less than three reference point one telling you redundancies were limited to navigation, second source said redundant systems were not always planned/modular as per the example of the oxygen scrubbers in the command modual verse the lam were redundant systems but did not share the came construction. Which nearly ended apollo 13 sohortly after the cryo stir explosion.

Quote
Well, certainly the tanks didn't have redundancy,

actually they were several oxygen tanks, but most all of the o2 was planned.

Quotebut they were built to high standards.

no one is disputing that sort, but a high standard does not make a redundant system.

QuoteRedundancy doesn't mean "two or more of everything," you fucking idiot.

glob..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)
In engineering, redundancy is the duplication of critical components or functions of a system with the intention of increasing reliability of the system, usually in the form of a backup or fail-safe, or to improve actual system performance, such as in the case of GNSS receivers, or multi-threaded computer processing.

So yeah in engineering a redundant system means there is a back up or another system ready to take over the primary. I am an engineer with an engineering company with 20+ years and 3 patents are you seriously going to argue this moot point against me and the reference material I just left you? If so just know the "Ya-Huh" you plan to use has already discredited you.

QuoteIt means that even in a catestrophic accident (like what happened on Apollo 13), there were contingencies and backups for what might go wrong to get the crew back safely.

No... sportress those are contingencies. A contingency plan is just that.. a plan worked out based on a system failure. There is a book of them. on the apollo mission the book was thrown out because they said the space craft would never be able to sustain that much damage and be survivable.. (which is another stroke of luck as the 'science' had already given up before the failure was completely identified.

So here Again I left reference material supporting my personal take on those words. if you seek to topple you must find a more reliable source, otherwise your intellectual laziness will be identified and simply dismissed as not being worthy of comment.

QuoteThe LEM served as a lifeboat on 13. It counts as a redundant system.

Yes sweet heart but as I also pointed out the parts on the lem were not compatible with the systems in the command modual (The oxygen scrubbers to be exact.)

Quote
Because they were testing the systems through Apollo 10.
Well, wouldn't you want to test the systems before going through with the full mission, you fucking nimrod?

Holy Crap... if you just cut and pasted the next sentence... are you so foolish as to not read all of what I write before you respond? or is it your hope I don't remember what I told you if you do not quote it???

IF you read the rest of what I wrote You would see the bit about the shuttle astronauts not having 10 missions before the first flight. Why? because they have the redundant systems you thought the Saturn V did. The fact is the saturn V did not have the redundancies which is why there were so many non-moon flights on a rocket built to goto the moon.

Again, can just disagree I posted quite a few references. if you want to argue what I posted you have to refute the nasa based material I quoted from.

Or just concede the argument, because the deeper you go the more foolish you look arguing with NASA documents that you are trying to contradict.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 12, 2017, 02:26:37 PM
actually they were several oxygen tanks, but most all of the o2 was planned.
no one is disputing that sort, but a high standard does not make a redundant system.
glob..
In engineering, redundancy is the duplication of critical components or functions of a system with the intention of increasing reliability of the system, usually in the form of a backup or fail-safe, or to improve actual system performance, such as in the case of GNSS receivers, or multi-threaded computer processing.

Oh, look! Redundancy doesn't require duplications of components; it can involve duplication of function. The Apollo spacecraft was functionally redundant in terms of life support, in the form of the LEM. One way to achieve functional redundancy is with modular redundancy, but it's hardly the only way.

This basically destroys your entire argument. You claimed that the way that Apollo got to the moon was through luck. Well, no, that wasn't luck. It was engineering. Very little was left to chance. It took only a little fuel with the redundant systems on the LEM to boost Apollo 13 onto its return trajectory. Contingency is a form of redundancy, the functional kind. Properly executed, it can put you back on track in a mission, or at least get you back safely, and in engineering, that's all that's required. At best, you are nitpicking about the exact engineering definitions, but you have not dismissed my overall point: that the acheivements of the Apollo program was due to MAN, not to any sort of God.

When I did engineering, I was like a god!  So I see this argument as a false dichotomy ;-))

Quote from: Baruch on July 12, 2017, 06:28:44 PM
When I did engineering, I was like a god!  So I see this argument as a false dichotomy ;-))

Were you "like a god" the same way Trump is "like a smart person"?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 13, 2017, 12:58:31 PM
Were you "like a god" the same way Trump is "like a smart person"?

Well, had I been given a million by my dad, to start ... I would have stopped while I was ahead ;-)  So no, not the same.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 12, 2017, 10:46:04 AM

Well, wouldn't you want to test the systems before going through with the full mission, you fucking nimrod?

To make a minor point, Nimrod was actually a mighty hunter.  Of the bible to be sure, but calling someone a "nimrod" to suggest an unskilled person has always amazed me.  Sort of like calling Orion of mythology an "Elmer Fudd".

Carry on....

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 13, 2017, 12:58:31 PM
Were you "like a god" the same way Trump is "like a smart person"?

Billionare... POTUS... Own Jet, not a g series but a boeing777 holdings all over the world.

What you people don't seem to understand, is no one is giving anyone a billion dollars, the presidency was not a gift 777's don't grow on trees... If Trump has that stuff, like it or not he is indeed smarter than everyone else on the planet who has ever strives for extreme wealth and or the supreme seat of modern power.

Let me put it to you another way...

Where is your billion dollars kept?

What are you president of... whatever it is it is not the United States. Does it make you stupid because you don't have these things? then why is trump stupid for amassing a fortune and being elected to the highest office in the US?

And apparently he is.  I'm almost tempted to peek at the posts.  But that would ruin the anticipation when I do someday.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 14, 2017, 03:41:27 PM
Billionare... POTUS... Own Jet, not a g series but a boeing777 holdings all over the world.

What you people don't seem to understand, is no one is giving anyone a billion dollars, the presidency was not a gift 777's don't grow on trees... If Trump has that stuff, like it or not he is indeed smarter than everyone else on the planet who has ever strives for extreme wealth and or the supreme seat of modern power.

Let me put it to you another way...

Where is your billion dollars kept?

What are you president of... whatever it is it is not the United States. Does it make you stupid because you don't have these things? then why is trump stupid for amassing a fortune and being elected to the highest office in the US?

Trump is good at selling Trump, and that's really all the presidential election is â€" it's a sale.

Running the country? That's a different kettle of fish. On that front, he's been abysmal. No economic policy, Obamacare still here, and trouble with his son's ties with Russia. He's literally been cruising on the coattails of Obama for the past six months.

Anyway, I don't need a billion dollars. I'm satisfied with what I have, and I am more or less happy. Trump strikes me as the kind of fellow who wouldn't be satisfied if he had a trillion dollars, and that speaks to me of a deeply broken character.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 14, 2017, 04:02:01 AM
To make a minor point, Nimrod was actually a mighty hunter.  Of the bible to be sure, but calling someone a "nimrod" to suggest an unskilled person has always amazed me.  Sort of like calling Orion of mythology an "Elmer Fudd".

Carry on....

And it was the Bugs Bunny cartoons that turned 'Nimrod' from 'mighty hunter' into 'doofus' -- the hunter angle was exactly why Bugs referred to Elmer as a 'poor little Nimrod'.

I seem to recall seeing a thing on TV once, there's some high school in northern Michigan that's been the Nimrods since like 1910 or thereabouts, long before the word turned.  And they've kept the name.

Trump was a dumbass before he got elected and he hasnt shown any improvements in the last 6 months. nothing to see... there are still a lot of dumber people that still think the old goat is better than Clinton some serious republican brain-washing going on here. and Congress could get rid of all their problems if they kick him out and let Pence take over

I always thought of Nimrod as a guy like Mr. T; mean dude that may kick your butt. Elmer Fudd was supposed to be the idiot? the Nimrod?

Look who has PDS ... politics derangement syndrome ;-)

Quote from: Cavebear on July 14, 2017, 04:02:01 AM
To make a minor point, Nimrod was actually a mighty hunter.  Of the bible to be sure, but calling someone a "nimrod" to suggest an unskilled person has always amazed me.  Sort of like calling Orion of mythology an "Elmer Fudd".

Carry on....

QuoteIn American English, however, the term has assumed a derogatory meaning, probably because of Bugs Bunny's references to Elmer Fudd as a "poor little Nimrod".[1] While this was most likely using the term's "hunter" sense, it contributed to the development of a sense "one who was easily confounded".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nimrod

Pop culture trumps erudition.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 15, 2017, 08:22:14 PM
Trump is good at selling Trump, and that's really all the presidential election is â€" it's a sale.

so how is that stupid/?

QuoteRunning the country? That's a different kettle of fish.

here's the thing No one man runs this country.. Our executive gives the country direction. It is all three branches together that "run" this country.

QuoteOn that front, he's been abysmal.

Boarder crossings down 70%, record high stock markets, rededication for US jobs, Getting us out of bad trade deals like the paris accords and nafta, tpp ect... I'd say are all great things for the first 6 months.

QuoteNo economic policy,

That's not what the country wanted for the first 6 months.

Quote
Obamacare still here,

It is never going all the way away.

Quoteand trouble with his son's ties with Russia.

So what.

QuoteHe's literally been cruising on the coattails of Obama for the past six months.

Actually he has for the last six months done everything he could to dismantle Obama's legacy. Everything obama accomplished He has revoked. Iran deal he is trying to get us out of, shutting Cuba back down, trying to get us out of obama care ttp is gone, we are going ahead with the transatlantic pipeline, He has obliterated the green initiative, and the whole frech accord is also gone... so what exactly is left of obama that Trump is skirting on?

QuoteAnyway, I don't need a billion dollars.I'm satisfied with what I have, and I am more or less happy.

Not the point. The point is they don't give billions of dollars away otherwise you would have a billion dollars as well. Rather you need be quite smart to obtain and maintain a billion dollars. Something Trump has indeed done.

QuoteTrump strikes me as the kind of fellow who wouldn't be satisfied if he had a trillion dollars, and that speaks to me of a deeply broken character.

please explain how wanting more point to a broken character. King David collected alsorts of taxes for stuff his people did not need but rather for the building of the first temple his son was supposed to build. Point simply wanting more is not a bad thing, it is what you want it for.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 17, 2017, 10:27:30 AMOur executive gives the country direction.

Except the current CEO. (He said that he wanted to run the country as a corporation, with himself as the CEO.  Guess what?  He is.)  He runs it by tweets that are about as intelligent as any 6 year old I've ever encountered.

QuoteBoarder crossings down 70%

I don't know which boarders you're talking about, I don't have any people I give room and board to.

Or did you mean "borders"?  And where did you get that 70% figure from?  Oh, yeah, one of Trump's self-serving tweets.  (Also remember that illegal crossings in freight containers are always down when you can broil to death in a couple of hours.  Wait until it cools down, and he blames someone for the increase in crossings.)

Quoterecord high stock markets

Or, looked at from the other direction, decrease in the value of the dollar.  (The US dollar isn't the world monetary standard any more.)

Quoterededication for US jobs

Like "I'm going to bring back the coal industry"?  He can "bring it back" but, aside from the steel industry, no one is buying coal any more.  He might as well 'rededicate' the buttonhook industry.

QuoteIt is never going all the way away.

Obamacare?  Oh, you mean Romneycare.  The only reason it's not going away is that anyone causing even higher medical insurance premiums than we have now wouldn't stand a chance at the polls - and they know it.

QuoteActually he has for the last six months done everything he could to dismantle Obama's legacy. Everything obama accomplished He has revoked. Iran deal he is trying to get us out of, shutting Cuba back down, trying to get us out of obama care ttp is gone, we are going ahead with the transatlantic pipeline

One of the worst ideas since man climbed down from the trees.  If the transatlantic pipeline breaks, it won't be the Atlantic Ocean, it'll be the Atlantic Oil Reserve Tank.

QuoteHe has obliterated the green initiative

Right ... who needs to breathe as long as Trump is CEO?

QuoteThe point is they don't give billions of dollars away

Oh, yes we do, and have been doing it for many, many decades (at least as far back as TR).  Did you just come out of your cave yesterday?

QuoteRather you need be quite smart to obtain and maintain a billion dollars. Something Trump has indeed done.

But how has he don it?  Oh, yeah, by starting with tens of billions.  He borrowed from banks, let his businesses fail, then left the banks holding the bag while he left with the money.  This time, when USA, Inc. fails, he'll still leave with the money - but the people, us, will be left holding the bag.  And making the 1930-1941 depression look like a slight correction.

Quoteplease explain how wanting more point to a broken character. King David collected alsorts of taxes for stuff his people did not need but rather for the building of the first temple his son was supposed to build. Point simply wanting more is not a bad thing, it is what you want it for.

And Trump wants it so that Trump gets richer.  That's called greed, and greed is a bad thing.  (Unless you live on Bizarro World, which is seeming more and more likely.)

All the drichs in the world only make me laugh sadly...  It is they who keep society from moving forward, they who keep nations from being at some general level of peace free of religious differences, they who keep medical practices limited, they who keep education limited, etc, etc...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 18, 2017, 03:12:22 AM
All the drichs in the world only make me laugh sadly...  It is they who keep society from moving forward, they who keep nations from being at some general level of peace free of religious differences, they who keep medical practices limited, they who keep education limited, etc, etc...

The problem is, if you eliminate everyone from the bottom of the bell curve, the mean moves to the right, but the shape is still a bell curve.  Continue the process, and you eliminate everyone.  Society has to figure out a way to live with the lower half of the bell curve, or not live at all.

Quote from: Colanth on July 17, 2017, 04:40:06 PM
Except the current CEO. (He said that he wanted to run the country as a corporation, with himself as the CEO.  Guess what?  He is.)

CEO-What? it's been 6 months, give it sometime.

QuoteHe runs it by tweets that are about as intelligent as any 6 year old I've ever encountered.

Have you ever been on twitter? do you know how it works?? when your limited to 64 characters it is hard to say something proud everyday unless you have a team of writers work behind you to prop you up.

QuoteI don't know which boarders you're talking about, I don't have any people I give room and board to.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/9/illegal-immigration-southwest-border-down-70-pct/

QuoteOr did you mean "borders"?  And where did you get that 70% figure from?

Or the washington post, the ny time or like below NPR: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/27/525584236/in-trumps-first-100-days-a-dramatic-reduction-in-immigration

Kind make the spelling of boarder a smaller secondary BS factoid when you get the primary sourcing of the subject matter wrong, huh?

You: Hey man let me get that speck out of your eye, you seem all sorts of unrespectible running around with that speck..

Me: then how about you take that plank out of your eye before you start digging in mine.

QuoteOh, yeah, one of Trump's self-serving tweets.

:histerical:
(your plank)

Quote(Also remember that illegal crossings in freight containers are always down when you can broil to death in a couple of hours.  Wait until it cools down, and he blames someone for the increase in crossings.)

which is why I included links to source material that included graphs which describes last years numbers... you know last year at this time.. when the temp was the same, meaning the risk was the same. :winkle:

QuoteOr, looked at from the other direction, decrease in the value of the dollar.  (The US dollar isn't the world monetary standard any more.)

Thanks obama for selling out our gold reserves to china which put us in the spot where now china is calling into question the power of the Dollar as the world lead currency. Even so as of 6-13-17 we still are.
https://www.thebalance.com/world-currency-3305931

QuoteLike "I'm going to bring back the coal industry"?  He can "bring it back" but, aside from the steel industry, no one is buying coal any more.  He might as well 'rededicate' the buttonhook industry.

2/3's of the world still runs on coal sport, that is what the stink was about in the paris accords when Trump opted out. Meaning the US was not going to pay to have 2/3 of the world up data to 1 world technology and power generation on america's dime. Rather than that He will single handily restart the coal industry by opening trade to the 2nd and 3rd world nations whole are still coal dependent. Even vast swaths of China still depend on coal.

QuoteObamacare?  Oh, you mean Romneycare. 

No no, this one belongs to obama, he is the captain of that ship and needs to take full responsiblity for whatever damage this thing does to America.

QuoteThe only reason it's not going away is that anyone causing even higher medical insurance premiums than we have now wouldn't stand a chance at the polls - and they know it.

Which is the oppsite of what obammie promised. "Keep your doctor, keep you plan, prices will be cut in 1/2"

QuoteOne of the worst ideas since man climbed down from the trees.  If the transatlantic pipeline breaks, it won't be the Atlantic Ocean, it'll be the Atlantic Oil Reserve Tank.

moron, it doesnt come close to the ocean
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/dakota-access-pipeline-vs-keystone-xl-pipeline/article31568800/

QuoteRight ... who needs to breathe as long as Trump is CEO?

that's right the sky is falling under gore/clinton/sanders I hope the next 8 years will show you conclusively it is not. besides that the green initiative was an alternative fuels subsidy that made smart guys who know how to manipulate the law like elon musk lots of money. All that stuff does not go away. it just gets put on the topshelf for rich people to play with.

QuoteOh, yes we do, and have been doing it for many, many decades (at least as far back as TR).  Did you just come out of your cave yesterday?

never once did TR give out a billion dollars because he thought the shy was falling or that winter was too cold or summer too warm... no that is a new thing all together that trump has sense enough to stop.

QuoteBut how has he don it?  Oh, yeah, by starting with tens of billions.

He started with a million dollar loan.

QuoteHe borrowed from banks, let his businesses fail, then left the banks holding the bag while he left with the money.

I can promise you no one starts a business to have it fail in the expectations to make a billion dollars as the net result... do you even hear yourself when you guys say these things? or does your distain for the wealthy automatically blind you with envy that the stupidest things now can make sense. Let me tell you when a business fails they take everything, before the offer bankruptcy protection, what maybe left (which is true with trump) He lost so much the federal government allowed him to write the loss off as a business expense in the coming decade. but that does not generate revenue for you or the company. it simply means you don't loose it to the government.

QuoteThis time, when USA, Inc. fails, he'll still leave with the money

The president who refuses a paycheck will leave with the money of the whole country?!?!?
seriously? how can that happen???

Quote- but the people, us, will be left holding the bag. And making the 1930-1941 depression look like a slight correction.
And Trump wants it so that Trump gets richer.  That's called greed, and greed is a bad thing.  (Unless you live on Bizarro World, which is seeming more and more likely.)

What great faith you have oh man of proof and science.

I think Drich should stick to the Bible. Jeez your awareness of economics and politics sucks

Obamacare was created by the Heritage Foundation and tested by Romney.

no one becomes a billionaire without stealing from other people.

When you have more money in the bank than you could possibly spend during the rest of your life, it is wrong to want more. You should be in a treatment center right next to someone doing an ounce of cocaine every week.

To name just one, oil companies are given billions of dollars a year even though their need for support ended at least 50 years ago.

Yes billion dollar businesses are created to fail. And businesses that are 50-100 years old go out of business because scum like Jamey Diamond and David Koch have figured out how to drain the companies and legally put all the money in their own pockets.

Al Gore made some mistakes in his video, but you can't deny the basic premise of what he was saying. Not even with the Bible. There isn't any place in the Bible that says god will keep us from destroying this planet. During the last 10 years there have been huge grass fires in the artic circle; something that as far as I know has never happened in recorded history. Oh yeah the last couple years the streets of Miami are flooded at high tide because of the rise in ocean level.

Trump reopening coal mines doesn't help any miners because they are being replaced by automated equipement. In the new coal mines 10 people can get out 20-50 times as much coal with machines as used to be with 100 miners.

Is there a trans-Atlantic pipeline? The only pipeline I've been hearing about is keystone. A pipeline to take the tar sands from Alberta to Texas. (Canada could have easily have made a pipe to their own refinery but the government of Canada considered the tar sands so toxic that they didn't want it processed in Canada -denied the applications of its own oil companies)

Quote from: Baruch on July 18, 2017, 07:02:57 AM
The problem is, if you eliminate everyone from the bottom of the bell curve, the mean moves to the right, but the shape is still a bell curve.  Continue the process, and you eliminate everyone.  Society has to figure out a way to live with the lower half of the bell curve, or not live at all.

I think that is because professional media is controlled by rich people, and most of the wealthy are republicans. The U.S. is constantly bombarded with propaganda of the wealthy. Both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon would be primaried for being too liberal.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 17, 2017, 10:27:30 AM
so how is that stupid/?

It's not, in and of itself. Thing is, when people buy something, they expect to get something in return. The electorate expected a competent leader. They got something different. Then again, it is Trump's modus operendi.

Quote from: Drich0150
here's the thing No one man runs this country.. Our executive gives the country direction. It is all three branches together that "run" this country.

Nitpicking. He was elected to do the job of being commander in chief.

Quote from: Drich0150
Boarder crossings down 70%, record high stock markets, rededication for US jobs, Getting us out of bad trade deals like the paris accords and nafta, tpp ect... I'd say are all great things for the first 6 months.

Amazing that this happened without any significant change in economic or domestic policy, hence my comment on riding the coattails of the Obama administration. No, execuative orders are not that powerful â€" it takes money to make this happen, and Congress holds the purse-strings, and time to affect real changes, with meetings, discussion, studies and shit. The next administration can reverse Trump's orders just as easily and bring every single piece back.

The only thing Trump has done on our boarder is block a certain population from a region that we do not see significant numbers of people from. The Paris accords were not binding in the slightest, we're still in NAFTA, and the TPP was a trade accord that we happened to be the head honcho in.

Quote from: Drich0150
That's not what the country wanted for the first 6 months.

You still need some strategy about how you want to handle the economy, even if it's not your main focus. Again, these great things for the economy you speak of happened because of Obama, not Trump.

Quote from: Drich0150
It is never going all the way away.

He promised to repeal or reform Obamacare in the first 100 days. He has not done either. Failure.

Quote from: Drich0150
So what.

It does not concern you that a foreign power might have influenced the election? Might still be influencing the most powerful office in the land? Yeah, that tells me just about all I need to know about your intelligence.

Quote from: Drich0150
Actually he has for the last six months done everything he could to dismantle Obama's legacy.

You don't seem to understand that Trump is benefiting from that same legacy that you and him disparage.

Quote from: Drich0150
Everything obama accomplished He has revoked.

No, it hasn't. Changing the operational workings of the executive branch takes more than executive orders. Those operational workings have to have a certain inertia or they are meaningless. They can't be changed by Trump simply swinging his pen. He must change them the same way that they were enacted, and those bylaws take a long time to change. Trump's only opportunity to revoke Obama's legacy wholesale like you envision sunsetted after 60 days. Now, he can only strike them down the same way they were enacted, and that takes a long, long time of constant effort.

Quote from: Drich0150
Iran deal he is trying to get us out of, shutting Cuba back down, trying to get us out of obama care ttp is gone, we are going ahead with the transatlantic pipeline,

Which will be more of a job destroyer than a creator. Sure, thousands of jobs will be created, but those are only construction jobs. Once construction is finished, they disperse elsewhere, and every town that depended on the construction jobs becomes a ghost town. The permanent jobs created by the pipeline number in the 50-70 range. Furthermore, the transport jobs that used to crate that oil will be destroyed, never to come back.

That's why the oil companies want the pipeline â€" they want to cut costs by cutting the jobs needed to transport that oil to a minimum. But, of course, you are an idiot and don't see this.

And the TPP was an economic arangment that we dictated and enacted for our benefit. Now the former signatories are going to form their own version and shut the US out. This was economic potential Trump has simply pissed away.

Quote from: Drich0150
He has obliterated the green initiative, and the whole frech accord is also gone...

The Paris accords were never binding. Period. There was nothing to back out of. Furthermore, now that he's focused away from green technologies, the green industry is now at a disadvantage against the rest of the world, who are going to get on that like white on rice. Even if you don't believe in the green cause, it's still an industry that employs people (more people than coal) and is going to be growing in the next few years. It is an economic opportunity that Trump is simply pissing away.

Quote from: Drich0150
so what exactly is left of obama that Trump is skirting on?

Eliminating all that high profile stuff still leaves the operational cogs in the machinery, the basic stuff that keeps the country running. Trump may have eliminated some high profile stuff, but most of it is still in place.

Quote from: Drich0150
Not the point. The point is they don't give billions of dollars away otherwise you would have a billion dollars as well. Rather you need be quite smart to obtain and maintain a billion dollars. Something Trump has indeed done.

It takes some basic intelligence, but any person could have done what Trump has done and more by simply investing their money in the stock market. If Trump had done that when he got his first million, he would be worth twice to four times what he claims he's worth. Furthermore, while he may be personally rich, he is a small businessman. He basically is his own company, and while a billion dollars is a lot to someone like you and me, a billion dollar company is mid-sized at best. The big companies like Apple, Microsoft, GM, Amazon, Google, etc. are all worth hundreds of billions of dollars, each.

Think about it. When was the last time you bought a Trump-branded product? I predict, never. Me neither. Trump could have disappeared five years ago and no one would have noticed. The same could not be said of truly big companies like Apple et al.

So, no, someone who is unable to outperform the random drift that is the stock market is not someone I consider smart with money. He's also bankrupted his businesses six times, all using other people's money. And those holdings you claim he has around the world? Most of them, not his holdings. They belong to other people and Trump is simply renting out his name for a fee. You'd have to be a drool on the floor idiot to not make money from that arrangement.

Quote from: Drich0150
please explain how wanting more point to a broken character. King David collected alsorts of taxes for stuff his people did not need but rather for the building of the first temple his son was supposed to build. Point simply wanting more is not a bad thing, it is what you want it for.

King David had to build a temple out of obligation. Nothing obligates Trump to do any similiar thing. It's simply naked greed. Bill Gates is not my favorite person in the world, but he had the human decency to use his wealth to support the society that made him rich. Trump? I don't see him doing any similar thing. So yeah, deeply broken.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 18, 2017, 03:12:22 AM
All the drichs in the world only make me laugh sadly...  It is they who keep society from moving forward, they who keep nations from being at some general level of peace free of religious differences, they who keep medical practices limited, they who keep education limited, etc, etc...

They who keep old progressive men from touch young boy hinnies, they who keep the they ever lowering bar of man morality from out pacing he morality of Sodom and Gomorrah, They who give meaning to the words, duty, honor, integrity, honesty, family, and it is "They" who demand we be accountable for our actions.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 19, 2017, 10:12:30 AM
They who keep old progressive men from touch young boy hinnies, they who keep the they ever lowering bar of man morality from out pacing he morality of Sodom and Gomorrah, They who give meaning to the words, duty, honor, integrity, honesty, family, and it is "They" who demand we be accountable for our actions.

Given all the pedophile priests there has been in history your not doing a very good job of it.
Also using the story of sodom and gomorrah as the standard for what you consider morality in the bible is one used pretty much every time a christian wants to condemn a homosexual to hell and damnation, so might want to outsource yourself there.

Quote from: fencerider on July 19, 2017, 02:53:23 AM
I think Drich should stick to the Bible. Jeez your awareness of economics and politics sucks

again.. sucks to what measure?

QuoteObamacare was created by the Heritage Foundation and tested by Romney.

and why was it called obama care? oh, that's right he put his name on it to sell this turd to the american people because he is a branding whore just like you claim trump to be. Do you really think the core legesltion (which is what the rep will use to rebuild the affordable care act that you attribute to the heritage foundation) legislation included the federal government taking over all student loans and increasing the intrest rate as a way to help pay for this failing beast? Not to mention the 1/2 dozen other way obama and the "Dims" used this failing behemoth as a federal government expansion.

I honestly think it was designed to fail, and clinton was to push the ever more expansive single/government provider system. where socialist decend upon the medical community and set pricing for everyone, yet tax the hell out of the rest of us in another government expansion.

If you google what the heritage foundation suggested, you would not recognise it as obama care. it was mearly the frame work of how to upside medicade.

Quoteno one becomes a billionaire without stealing from other people.

No one becomes wealth without other claiming something in order to get a free ride.

QuoteWhen you have more money in the bank than you could possibly spend during the rest of your life, it is wrong to want more. You should be in a treatment center right next to someone doing an ounce of cocaine every week.

It does not work that way. Inorder to 'have' access to say a million dollars you assetts have to exceed that times 10. with large money there is a point of diminishing returns. (which is why people who never had money or came into it quick like lottery or a star athelete or rapper or something always goes broke) because once you have say a million you need 10 more in infrastructure to keep it, meaning investments and shelters so the federal government does not take what you earned and give it to some a-hole who's job is to get high all day. A million dollars will not sit static in your bank account, if you do not rightly divide it. More so the more you make the faster it can go. unless you tie the money up in tangible assets or investments. but to do that decreases avaible on hand cash... Meaning you could own 3 sky scrapers but not have the money in hand to put fuel in your jet. So yes you need more, and the more you have the more you need to maintain, not expand, but just to maintain your life. So yes a million may seem like a lot, but in truth it may only be 1/3 of that if your friends and family don't take it first. But if you are invested you may only see or be able to have access to 10% of that..

QuoteTo name just one, oil companies are given billions of dollars a year even though their need for support ended at least 50 years ago.

They are given subsidies not support. google it. It keeps oil prices affordable. or did you not know we are now paying less (with inflation calculated in) than we were in the 1960's (.35 per gallon)

QuoteYes billion dollar businesses are created to fail.

example seriously provide an example and subsequent documentation, not of a billion dollar business failure but of a billion dollar business designed to fail and the owners make billions more upon failure. because that is what is being discussed, not whether or not a billion dollar business has ever failed.

QuoteAnd businesses that are 50-100 years old go out of business because scum like Jamey Diamond and David Koch have figured out how to drain the companies and legally put all the money in their own pockets.

Are you dense? did the business owner 50 or 100 years ago designed these businesses to fail? Again that is what i am talking about not a liquidation of assetts, of which the banks and lenders get paid out of first!/No one is making money, everyone is loosing money, the only question is how much do you want to loose.

QuoteAl Gore made some mistakes in his video, but you can't deny the basic premise of what he was saying.

Here's the thing with gore. There is 500 years of science (data records observation and a whole who's who of scientist) that directly contradict gore and his buddies. This is where you guys go off from what precious science has established with 500 years of mainstream understanding for a guy who casup money wanting to sell you carbon credits (because they will save the sky from falling)

No one is denying the planet is changing otherwise we'd be in another ice age. But the difference is 500 years of meteorology tells us it is because the sun is putting out more than it was. casup man is simply trying to cash in on the old chicken little bit.

QuoteNot even with the Bible. There isn't any place in the Bible that says god will keep us from destroying this planet.

indeed. matter of fact it is prophesied

QuoteDuring the last 10 years there have been huge grass fires in the arctic circle; something that as far as I know has never happened in recorded history.

You do know there was a time where the arctic was not frozen right? and it was in the recent past. or did you think mammoths ate ice? The planet is recovering and returning to the way it was, we have simply developed in a transitionary period and never known true planetary stability.

QuoteOh yeah the last couple years the streets of Miami are flooded at high tide because of the rise in ocean level.

it's called a king tide and it happens all the time because they build the roads 20ft from the high water mark.

QuoteTrump reopening coal mines doesn't help any miners because they are being replaced by automated equipement.

bwahahaha have you been to a coal mine? it's like going back in time 75 years. until coal prices go way way up, they will always be miners.

QuoteIn the new coal mines 10 people can get out 20-50 times as much coal with machines as used to be with 100 miners.

as apposed to what pick axes? yes. they do have machines, but the still blast and the still need operators for all of that stuff. watch a dirty jobs episode.

QuoteIs there a trans-Atlantic pipeline? The only pipeline I've been hearing about is keystone.

I made the correction

QuoteA pipeline to take the tar sands from Alberta to Texas. (Canada could have easily have made a pipe to their own refinery but the government of Canada considered the tar sands so toxic that they didn't want it processed in Canada -denied the applications of its own oil companies)

No... Canada does not have the oil refinement capability/infrastructure to tackle the level of refinement needed for this source of oil. So they simply hand it off and get paid a royality.

QuoteI think that is because professional media is controlled by rich people, and most of the wealthy are republicans. The U.S. is constantly bombarded with propaganda of the wealthy. Both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon would be primaried for being too liberal.

Are you insane? you think the reps own the media??? If so why did the whole media lement when trump was elected? why are they always up his b-hole about russia why is it non stop impeachment talk?

No the Media is Hard left my friend and they don't even pretend to be different.

Great example H. Clinton Colluded with the Russians while active Secretary of state to have the US sell 25% of all uranium the US produced to russia, and she received 140 million dollars to do it.

The president of the United States Has a Meeting with The Russian president it goes 1 hour longer than schedualed and the media is literally telling people that trump sold out the country to the russians.. Can't provide us with details.. but they are convinced. Meanwhile clinton and the uranium 1 deal gets unnoticed. Why if the media belongs to the reps?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 19, 2017, 08:47:47 AM
It's not, in and of itself.

then why call it stupid?

QuoteThing is, when people buy something, they expect to get something in return.

Those who voted for trump are getting what they voted for.

QuoteThe electorate expected a competent leader. They got something different. Then again, it is Trump's modus operendi.

Here competency is a metaphor for popularity. Because if it were meant to be taken as the word is defined then trump's competency out maneuvered the best Clinton could muster. If you wanted a less compent leader than trump then by literal default clinton is your canidate. but again you are not using the word to describe someone's ablity to manage and or lead, you are using the word to describe popularity by your factions terms, which is a sad form of brain washing.

You lost and yet you think you are still better somehow.. sad. maybe that is why all the tolerant d-bags took to the streets in riots and why they still protest.. they/you drank the cool-aide and you still think you are better your candidate through all of her failings was better, when clearly the electorate disagrees.

QuoteNitpicking. He was elected to do the job of being commander in chief.

not familiar with politics I see. the picking of 'nits" is the job of commander in chief, because unless he can get all the 'nit-wits' all on page nothing will be done. Which is why obama turned out to be a lame duck president who executive order his legacy in place (which trump quickly dismantled)

If we want real change draining the swamp is going to have to be apart of the process.

QuoteAmazing that this happened without any significant change in economic or domestic policy,

it hasn't been 6 months give it time. that is the next thing on the chopping block.

Quotehence my comment on riding the coattails of the Obama administration.

Again what is left of his legacy? what uniquly obama piece of legislation is left that has not already or being dismantled? I think they even pulled out Michelle's roses and replaced with with "Euge" ones

QuoteNo, execuative orders are not that powerful â€" it takes money to make this happen, and Congress holds the purse-strings, and time to affect real changes, with meetings, discussion, studies and shit. The next administration can reverse Trump's orders just as easily and bring every single piece back.

unless they get signed into a bill/law through the proper channels. That is exactly why obama was a lame duck because He could never get both the house and congress onside, so rather than vote in his legacy the proper way he just E/O'ed it

QuoteThe only thing Trump has done on our boarder is block a certain population from a region that we do not see significant numbers of people from.

All trump did was be elected. The thought of being turn around by someone who meant it discouraged 76% of the people pouring in.

QuoteThe Paris accords were not binding in the slightest,

so you think we weren't going to pay the 8 trillion over 30 years or do you mean to say after we pay, no one else would when it came time from them to own up???

If we weren't going to pay then why sign the document? isn't that what trump did?

Quotewe're still in NAFTA,

not for long

Quoteand the TPP was a trade accord that we happened to be the head honcho in.

TPP was transpacific nafta
we would benfit via cheaper good to our stores but at the cost of jobs. so no it did not help the country unless you are just setting up a consumer base.

QuoteYou still need some strategy about how you want to handle the economy, even if it's not your main focus.

again it is the very next thing on the agenda. If you listen to the mainstream media you'd think the white house gave an s about the russian accusations and is going to be tied up there. no while congress is still in session they are actively hammering out the budget as well as the campaign tax cuts as well as other reforms. again you are speaking like he is in his 6th year of his presidency. Trump is and has done alot including, a lot behind the scenes . He is not obama where we are given daily things to be in awe about.

QuoteAgain, these great things for the economy you speak of happened because of Obama, not Trump.

give it time, give it time...

QuoteHe promised to repeal or reform Obamacare in the first 100 days. He has not done either. Failure.

No, He did. meaning He put fourth legislation that would indeed do that. But because He is not a tryant He did not force it with an E/O as obama did when He implemented obama care to begn with. rather He lets the people's representative decide as they should. "we" via our proxies voted it down. Not a presidential failure, but a general consensus failure from the congress and house.

QuoteIt does not concern you that a foreign power might have influenced the election?

:histerical: How by releasing emails that showed the other canidate to be a literal theif, liar, someone who committed treason by coluding with the russians by selling them 25% of the US holdings for 140million dollars in personal gain? and when caugh this person "wiped" all of her personal servers and destroyed emails with hammers and drills.. Seriously This is how russia controls an election??? By what showing us the truth about who one of our canidates are? This woman was a world thug, a gangster. If I were incharge of a country she was looking to come after I would data dump as well in hopes the american people had an ounce of morality left in them.

Now what about Omama's recent attempt to get the prime minster of Israel ousted in his last election? Obama spent millions of tax dollars in negative adds on Israeli tv and not to mention a putten effort in the way of covert actions to try and change the seat of power in israel to BENFIT IRAN!!!

Why have I never heard one of you mention this outside a sweeping dismissal?

Seriously do you not look behind the head lines? "Headline" "russia attempts to influence American election..." Again how was that done? by shinning a light on the underhanded crap clinton was apart of.

QuoteMight still be influencing the most powerful office in the land? Yeah, that tells me just about all I need to know about your intelligence.

You guys use that word.. but don't seem to understand it's meaning. I see the word and can recognise someone who can acquire and apply knowledge or skill, which means even if I do not agree with them. You use the word to describe anything that does not align with your brand of brain washing. anyone who does not agree must be stupid... Sorry sport that's not the way intelligence works. The word you are looking for in conditioning or brain washing.

QuoteYou don't seem to understand that Trump is benefiting from that same legacy that you and him disparage.

...and you seem to be having another failure in basic comprehension. Here you are confused about the term legacy. to have a legacy means to have policies that last or go one after one's presidency is over. Trump has overturned all that was uniquely Obama. everything else was simply custodial. meaning the same crap every president has to do or deal with on one level or another.

QuoteNo, it hasn't. Changing the operational workings of the executive branch takes more than executive orders. Those operational workings have to have a certain inertia or they are meaningless. They can't be changed by Trump simply swinging his pen.

I gave you a whole list of examples of Trump "swinging his pen" that repealed obama era policies. without any rhyme or reason to do so.

QuoteHe must change them the same way that they were enacted, and those bylaws take a long time to change.

In these cases they were all enacted by obama issuing P/O, so there by a P/O they were repealed.

QuoteWhich will be more of a job destroyer than a creator. Sure, thousands of jobs will be created, but those are only construction jobs. Once construction is finished, they disperse elsewhere, and every town that depended on the construction jobs becomes a ghost town. The permanent jobs created by the pipeline number in the 50-70 range. Furthermore, the transport jobs that used to crate that oil will be destroyed, never to come back.

what transport jobs???
When the cost of transport exceed the market value of the oil the oil sits until it becomes viable to tap that resource. The pipline makes it viable. at the current 53 a barrel the oil is not valuable enough to ship where the pipline would end.

QuoteThat's why the oil companies want the pipeline â€" they want to cut costs by cutting the jobs needed to transport that oil to a minimum. But, of course, you are an idiot and don't see this.

ah.. no. not all the way true anyway. The alskian pipeline is a good example of this. the resources in northern alaska were far far too expensive to transport or utlize until the pipline made oil consumption from there affordable.

QuoteAnd the TPP was an economic arangment that we dictated and enacted for our benefit.

As a consumer moron. it killed jobs because it made it far cheaper to business over seas.

QuoteNow the former signatories are going to form their own version and shut the US out.

which is good because then it makes american based companies who need to ship back to this market, reconsider the cost of manufacturing over seas. meaning jobs come home which is what this president and those who voted for him are all about.

QuoteThis was economic potential Trump has simply pissed away.

you are a one sided coin inspector. or you don't do any reading beside what is read to you on the news. you are highly misinformed you do not scrutinize the information you are given and you can't seem to discriminate truth from political propaganda. That said I do not think you unintelligent. just lazy and far far too trusting on single source news.

QuoteThe Paris accords were never binding. Period.

Glob.. So if we weren't gong to pay, then why say we are by signing???

QuoteThere was nothing to back out of.

... You don't understand what the paris accord was do you? It was supposed to be all the 1st world countries putting all their money in a fund, and installing "green energy alternitives to the2nd and 3rd world nations who was still burning coal/fuel oil for power energy. so that they would not have to go through the industrial revolution/high pollution days the US and the other 1st worlder did. That was the crux of the paris accords was to bring up the rest of the world on the back of the US dollar. and you said we did not have to pay? Then again if not why sign? The accord did nothing in the way for supporting or inventing new green tech. It was to install green tech in places that could not afford it on their own allowing say the EU to polute on a little long because they reduced their carbon foot print by off setting what guam or some african village would have put now but now have wind farms. It was a world wide win win for anyone not in the US.

QuoteFurthermore, now that he's focused away from green technologies, the green industry is now at a disadvantage against the rest of the world, who are going to get on that like white on rice.

That is bs, nothing will stop that industry for one simple reason. There's gold in them thar hills! It's just now it will not be government controlled or sponsored gold. it will be held privatly, and that is what this accord was always really about. Government cashing in in the energy market.

QuoteEven if you don't believe in the green cause, it's still an industry that employs people (more people than coal) and is going to be growing in the next few years. It is an economic opportunity that Trump is simply pissing away.

Hey moron, Trump did not sign an order banning the development of green tech, He simply took government out of the industry so it can make it on it's own... look at healthcare, do you really want that abortion in charge of all the world green energy development and production? The patent I retained/made was in the green energy field and we could indeed qualify for obama grants but it gave the governement too much lateral control on how the patent could be used... It is like having an uncle telling you he will buy you what ever you want in toy R Us but you have to allow him to put his hand down your pants anytime he likes... IDK about you by to me that was a no thank tom hanks moment. I want control over my own stuff.

QuoteEliminating all that high profile stuff still leaves the operational cogs in the machinery, the basic stuff that keeps the country running. Trump may have eliminated some high profile stuff, but most of it is still in place.

Those 'gogs' were placed by the founding fathers. I acknowledge them when I said there are presidential dties that every president has to deal with, but what goes beyond that gives a president his legacy are the things that president enacted himself. like Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. What trump did or is in the processing of doing is revoking every single piece of personal legislation Obama enacted. The rest sweet heart is not about obama, but about the fundamentals of office those nondescript cogs that make this country run ARE the frame work of this government and it's Constitution. Not an obama legacy.

QuoteIt takes some basic intelligence, but any person could have done what Trump has done and more by simply investing their money in the stock market.

Ah, no. Do not trivialize the accumulation of a billion dollars several times over. especially with something as trivial as the market.
there are only 2000 people on the whole planet who have accomplished this feat. Again they do not give this money away. If you look at the list there is not one dumb person among them. You may not like them but that has nothing to do with intelligence. To attack a person's intelligence is a latent liberal's way to try and discredit a person without having to address any real substance. In essence it is a game dumb people play with each other so the can seem smarter in the presents of other game players.

Because in truth the only people concerned with how smart someone else is are teachers and stupid people who do not want to be found out.

QuoteIf Trump had done that when he got his first million, he would be worth twice to four times what he claims he's worth. Furthermore, while he may be personally rich, he is a small businessman. He basically is his own company, and while a billion dollars is a lot to someone like you and me, a billion dollar company is mid-sized at best. The big companies like Apple, Microsoft, GM, Amazon, Google, etc. are all worth hundreds of billions of dollars, each.

No. Again 2000 people with a billion or more. there are far more big businesses than just apple and google. what defines a big business is more than 100 million dollar per year in revenue. different thing different countries, but accross the board trump is/was big business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises

by trivializing provable fact makes you look as insane as a faith based YEC. If you are going to be a 'fact's person you must stick with them even when they make your position less secure. you must be ready to change to fit the facts rather than change facts to fit your narritive, which is what you are doing when you change the defination of big business to only fit those whom you like.

QuoteThink about it. When was the last time you bought a Trump-branded product?

I've got a big red hat and a button that says lock her up!

QuoteI predict, never. Me neither. Trump could have disappeared five years ago and no one would have noticed. The same could not be said of truly big companies like Apple et al.

So, no, someone who is unable to outperform the random drift that is the stock market is not someone I consider smart with money.

You are delusional... show me a group of billionares who have outperformed the random drift of the stock markets. You are the one pretending this is a common thing, out of the list of 2000 show me the handful that made this a common thing..

QuoteHe's also bankrupted his businesses six times, all using other people's money.

The best I got was 4 times by a legit source (forbes)

QuoteAnd those holdings you claim he has around the world? Most of them, not his holdings. They belong to other people and Trump is simply renting out his name for a fee. You'd have to be a drool on the floor idiot to not make money from that arrangement.

Which is how big money works sport. "rent" is a buy in to the company, and if you don't think Trump does not get a larger check in return, yet keeps his name on the building.. then you are turning into the bigger fool.

Sundae school teaches..

QuoteKing David had to build a temple out of obligation.

Sunday School teaches:
King david had too much blood on His hands to build the temple, so rather than build the temple he collected tax to have the temple built and spent his life gathering all the best building materials so his son Solomon could build the temple of God.

QuoteNothing obligates Trump to do any similiar thing. It's simply naked greed.

You should really watch some of his old interviews.

QuoteBill Gates is not my favorite person in the world, but he had the human decency to use his wealth to support the society that made him rich. Trump? I don't see him doing any similar thing. So yeah, deeply broken.

Trump gives like Christ taught us to Give. in secret (do not let you righ hand know what your left hand is doing) You never hear trump brag about giving, but you do hear from those whom He has given to. google it.

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 19, 2017, 01:44:29 PM
then why call it stupid?

I didn't. Look back at my posts. I never said that selling yourself well is stupid.

Quote
Here competency is a metaphor for popularity. Because if it were meant to be taken as the word is defined then trump's competency out maneuvered the best Clinton could muster.

The competency that people wanted in a president is different from the competency that Trump has so far demonstrated. Believe it or not, Trump is now our EMPLOYEE. The electorate put him there to do a job, and Trump convinced enough of the right parts of that electorate that he was the best person for that job. But convincing people that he is the right person for the job and being the right person for the job are different things.

You're simply trying to distract me from the competency that actually matters from the competency that got Trump into the white house.

Quote
You lost and yet you think you are still better somehow.. sad.

You seem to think that the presidential election is a game of football. That it doesn't matter who wins as long as your opponents lose. No, dearheart, like it or not we're in this together. If Trump fucks up, he fucks it up for everyone. You are part of the political partisanship that has been poisoning America for years.

Quote
not familiar with politics I see. the picking of 'nits" is the job of commander in chief,

No, I meant YOU'RE nitpicking, you idiot. Sure, the president doesn't rule alone, but he sets the tone of his term, is the spokesperson for the US to foreign powers, is responsible for carrying out the law, and so on. He has a huge responsibility that I don't think that Trump can handle.

Quote
it hasn't been 6 months give it time. that is the next thing on the chopping block.

He can't even kill Obamacare, the thing he promised to do in his first 100 days. Not that this surprises me. Obamacare is simply the healthcare plan that the Republicans wished they passed. The only other realistic choice is some form of socialized medicine that every other civilized country has. The political divide for taxes, etc. are even deeper.

Quote
I think they even pulled out Michelle's roses and replaced with with "Euge" ones

Yeah, I'm sure that represents a "yuge" change of economic policy.

Quote
unless they get signed into a bill/law through the proper channels. That is exactly why obama was a lame duck because He could never get both the house and congress onside, so rather than vote in his legacy the proper way he just E/O'ed it

These rules and regulations are not execuative orders. They are carefully considered and vetted procedures of how to translate the laws that congress passes into actions. They tell you what "carrying out the law" constitutes.

The rules that Obama enacted did not start with his lame duck period. They were years in the making. Some of it had been the works since before he was elected, and only in his administration were those rules and regulations worked out. That simple fact gives them the inertia that allows them to survive a prolonged period of not being enforced by Trump.

Quote
not for long

NAFTA is a treaty. Only congress can strike it down at this point. I'm not optimistic.

Quote
again it is the very next thing on the agenda.

So you admit that all of the positive economic effects were not due to Trump, but to Obama. Concession accepted.

Quote
give it time, give it time...

Give it time for them to... what? Mess it up? I think your priorities are a bit skewed, cupcake.

Quote
No, He did. meaning He put fourth legislation that would indeed do that.

No, he promised to repeal Obamacare and put in place something better in his first 100 days. He's failed that. GG.

Quote
But because He is not a tryant He did not force it with an E/O as obama did when He implemented obama care to begn with.

That's odd. I thought Obamacare was PASSED in congress, and still is the law of the land.

Quote
:histerical: How by releasing emails that showed the other canidate to be a literal theif, liar, someone who committed treason by coluding with the russians by selling them 25% of the US holdings for 140million dollars in personal gain?

Consider the source. Russia has always had dick-envy for the US, and saw in Trump the opportunity to bring their long-time enemy down a peg or two. Why are you assuming that any of the above is the truth, when it comes from a power that has interest in seeing the US diminish in power?

Imperial China had a saying, "Don't let a barbarian know they have something you want. Value nothing that comes from outside."

Quote
Now what about Omama's recent attempt to get the prime minster of Israel ousted in his last election? Obama spent millions of tax dollars in negative adds on Israeli tv and not to mention a putten effort in the way of covert actions to try and change the seat of power in israel to BENFIT IRAN!!!

No, to benefit us. If we oust a hard-line Israli leader, the palistinians might finally calm down and ease tensions a bit. This actually hurts Iran, because that country has been using anti-Zionist rhetoric to bolster its own position for ages.

Quote
Why have I never heard one of you mention this outside a sweeping dismissal?

Eh, because it's bullshit?

Quote
You guys use that word.. but don't seem to understand it's meaning. I see the word and can recognise someone who can acquire and apply knowledge or skill, which means even if I do not agree with them. You use the word to describe anything that does not align with your brand of brain washing. anyone who does not agree must be stupid...

This coming from a self-professed retard and personal tool of God.

Quote
to have a legacy means to have policies that last or go one after one's presidency is over. Trump has overturned all that was uniquely Obama.

*Cough* Obamacare.
Trump even has explicitly said that he would preserve some provisions of Obamacare. There is a permanent sea-change here, dude.

Quote
what transport jobs???
When the cost of transport exceed the market value of the oil the oil sits until it becomes viable to tap that resource. The pipline makes it viable. at the current 53 a barrel the oil is not valuable enough to ship where the pipline would end.

Is that the lie they keep feeding you? We've been using the Alberta tar sands as a source of syncrude since 1978. It's been producing 1.8 million barrels per day since 2012, and the US imports 1 million barrels of that. How do you think that oil ends up in the US? Are they transported via well-wishes and pixie dust? Do the Canadian geese load them up on their migration? No, it gets transported via trucks and other means of transport.

Quote
ah.. no. not all the way true anyway. The alskian pipeline is a good example of this. the resources in northern alaska were far far too expensive to transport or utlize until the pipline made oil consumption from there affordable.

Then why were oil tankers coming from Alaska? Don't you remember the Exxon Valdez? Why was it in the area to have its guts ripped open by a reef, spilling about 10 mil barrels, if it wasn't there to ship oil to California? Oh, right. It's because it was profitable to ship oil from Alaska.

Quote
As a consumer moron. it killed jobs because it made it far cheaper to business over seas.
which is good because then it makes american based companies who need to ship back to this market, reconsider the cost of manufacturing over seas. meaning jobs come home which is what this president and those who voted for him are all about.

The trade imbalanace with the asian countries began LONG before and without the TPP, sugar. Remember a very important point: We hadn't signed it yet. That's why it was easy to back out. If we had signed the damn thing, it would have the force of law. Therefore, the migrations of jobs overseas is NOT the fault of the TPP, and one of the goals of the TPP was to correct this disparity, but Trump has pissed that away. Moron.

Quote
you are a one sided coin inspector. or you don't do any reading beside what is read to you on the news.

Empty posturing. My conclusions come from many sources, including many of the same ones you use. Only I don't believe any of them at face value. I think about them, and make the ideas my own, if they're worth anything. It is simply bizzare to think that a treaty that had not been signed into law caused the migrations of jobs overseas, a phenomena that had been happening for decades prior. It just doesn't work as an example of good reasoning.

Quote
Glob.. So if we weren't gong to pay, then why say we are by signing???

You seem to be envisioning that we're shelling out money into some black hole if we were to comply with the accords. We're not. We're going to be paying that money to workers to change the basis of our economy away from dirty technologies. All that money is going into the US economy. That's the thing Trump doesn't understand. What you don't understand.

And you seem to be envisoning that if we don't comply with the accords, then we won't be paying. Nope. We'll pay, only it won't be workers, but in changes in farming patterns, the damage caused by tropical species migrating north and causing damage, new and nasty diseases once confined to the tropics, and lost revenue from the fact that the rest of the world will be more reluctant to buy our products because our industry is still "dirty."

Quote
... You don't understand what the paris accord was do you?

Do you? I've read the damn thing. You know, what it actually says instead of the lies your sources feed you. There's no mention in the accord of specific targets. The US is allowed to be as pessimistic as he wants as to its targets, though that might piss off the other signatories. There's also no means of enforcement. It's non-binding. It's simply a promisary note.

Quote
"green energy alternitives to the2nd and 3rd world nations who was still burning coal/fuel oil for power energy. so that they would not have to go through the industrial revolution/high pollution days the US and the other 1st worlder did.
<snip>

Let's for the sake of argument assume that the above is true. Who's going to be selling them that green tech? Thanks to Trump, not us. Green tech just doesn't pop out of nowhere. Someone has to make it for those 2nd and 3rd world countries to buy from. If we played our cards right, we could get all that money back and then some, and we would be in a good position to sell that tech to the rest of the world. Building an industry like that teaches you how to build that kind of tech faster, cheaper, and better, something that you see consistently across history. A businessman would see the opportunity for what it was and jumped at the chance. But then, Trump is not a good businessman.

Quote
Government cashing in in the energy market.

Show me where any government would be directed to "crash in" on the energy market. At best, your own source would make it so that 8 trillion of our money would be earmarked for the first green company to set up a significant international trade in that tech, and it might as well be our own people if we get in on it fast enough. Any gold the government would give them would be to develop their production for an international market, which quite frankly is something they would want to do anyway, but with our own money in the pot it would be a great incentive to do so. Now the incentive is less because we don't have a stake in the pot.

I really don't get this near-allergic level aversion to government playing any part in helping the economy along.

Quote
Hey moron, Trump did not sign an order banning the development of green tech,

I know he didn't, idiot. He simply failed to recognize the opportunity to incentivise green tech through issuing what amounts to a moon challenge. In the beginning of the 60's, we didn't have the tech to go to the moon, and only had something like 15 minutes of manned spaceflight experience when Kennedy made his famous challenge. Nine years later we had beaten the Russians to the moon. It was because Kennedy had set the tone, had challenged the US to make the moon shot. Now, we see Trump shying away from the challenge of changing the world economy away from fossil fuels. It's short-sighted and chilling to the green industry to see that.

Quote
Those 'gogs' were placed by the founding fathers.

It's "cogs", and you're wrong. The cogs are the machinery that was developed after the founding fathers' time. Laws passed by congress are not specific enough to be actionable. It's really up to the execuative branch to figure out what it needs to do to make sure the laws are carried out. Hence, it creates the rules and procedures to make laws actionable and give them real force. It is not done by execuative order or any such rot. It is done by committee, with consultation of experts and the public and all interested parties to make sure all interests are served in execution of the law. They are categorically not Obama enacting "personal legislation".

Quote
Ah, no. Do not trivialize the accumulation of a billion dollars several times over. especially with something as trivial as the market.

"Trivial as the stock market"? :histerical: Any investment expert will tell you the stock market is one of the surest ways to make money, in the long run. But you have to be in it for the long run.

Quote
there are only 2000 people on the whole planet who have accomplished this feat. Again they do not give this money away. If you look at the list there is not one dumb person among them. You may not like them but that has nothing to do with intelligence. To attack a person's intelligence is a latent liberal's way to try and discredit a person without having to address any real substance.

Empty posturing. You have yet to support that charge. The above doesn't dismiss the fact that he still couldn't outperform the stock market â€" that I could do something extremely simple-minded and would have still beaten the pants off him. The above doesn't dismiss the fact that he drove six of his previous businesses into the ground. He's either had a charmed life, or has had good financial advisors that have kept his money safe.

And even if he was smart with money, it doesn't necessarily translate well into a realm where your performance is not judged by how much money you make like the presidency. And may be in fact frowned upon.

Quote
In essence it is a game dumb people play with each other so the can seem smarter in the presents of other game players.

Because in truth the only people concerned with how smart someone else is are teachers and stupid people who do not want to be found out.

Which puzzles me why Trump is so concerned about portraying himself as a smart person. Hmmm....

Quote
No. Again 2000 people with a billion or more. there are far more big businesses than just apple and google. what defines a big business is more than 100 million dollar per year in revenue.

Who cares about how much revenue defines a big business, with some arbitrary threshold? That's just debating semantics, and semantics debates are boring. The fact remains that Trump could have vanished five years ago and nobody would have noticed he was gone. Also, the fact that he has three billion in net worth doesn't mean that he has three billion in revenue. A simple calculation shows that, in the fifty someodd years he spent building that 3 billion (assuming net worth, assets minus debt) gives an average revenue of 60 million yearly... which means that he doesn't qualify as a big business by your own cited standard.

Quote
I've got a big red hat and a button that says lock her up!

Funny. But that's not what I meant and you know it.

Quote
You are delusional... show me a group of billionares who have outperformed the random drift of the stock markets.

So none of those billionares have done better than the random walk of the stock market? How is this proof that they are "smart"?

Quote
The best I got was 4 times by a legit source (forbes)

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.5687dfa553b3

"Trump’s Taj Mahal opened in April 1990 in Atlantic City, but six months later, “defaulted on interest payments to bondholders as his finances went into a tailspin,” The Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow found. In July 1991, Trump’s Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. He could not keep up with debts on two other Atlantic City casinos, and those two properties declared bankruptcy in 1992. A fourth property, the Plaza Hotel in New York, declared bankruptcy in 1992 after amassing debt.

PolitiFact uncovered two more bankruptcies filed after 1992, totaling six. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004, after accruing about $1.8 billion in debt. Trump Entertainment Resorts also declared bankruptcy in 2009, after being hit hard during the 2008 recession.

Why the discrepancy? Perhaps this will give us an idea: Trump told Washington Post reporters that he counted the first three bankruptcies as just one."

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

I am so tempted to put a picture of Count Von Count here. Ah-ah-ah!

Quote
Which is how big money works sport. "rent" is a buy in to the company, and if you don't think Trump does not get a larger check in return, yet keeps his name on the building.. then you are turning into the bigger fool.

The fact remains, they are not his holdings. They are not administered by him. They are not indicative of his net worth or his ability to make money.

Quote
King david had too much blood on His hands to build the temple, so rather than build the temple he collected tax to have the temple built and spent his life gathering all the best building materials so his son Solomon could build the temple of God.

Which "King David had to build a temple out of obligation," is a fair description of. Unless you meant, "King David laid every stone of the temple himself," which of course is stupid.

Quote
Trump gives like Christ taught us to Give. in secret (do not let you righ hand know what your left hand is doing) You never hear trump brag about giving, but you do hear from those whom He has given to. google it.

Yeah, and I have a google that turned up the following gem:

Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades â€" and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

I don't believe for a second that a man who is willing to skip out on paying ordinary people has a charitable bone in his body.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 20, 2017, 01:12:21 AM
I didn't. Look back at my posts. I never said that selling yourself well is stupid.

Not me... Trump you called trump stupid after his accomplishments. Amassing a billion dollar empire, and winning the presidency.

QuoteThe competency that people wanted in a president is different from the competency that Trump has so far demonstrated.

Not from those who voted for Him and do not source their information from the mainstream media. I think those of you who voted for Clinton want what you describes as a different level of competency... But you were also wrong about who was going to win and by how much. Which points back to where you source your information. If every poll leading up the election was wrong, and every newcast from the mainstream media was wrong about his win, then why do you blindly accept that the majority of the people want anything more from trump than what we Got???

QuoteBelieve it or not, Trump is now our EMPLOYEE.

well, the majority of the electorate yes.

QuoteThe electorate put him there to do a job, and Trump convinced enough of the right parts of that electorate that he was the best person for that job. But convincing people that he is the right person for the job and being the right person for the job are different things.

He has done and is on track in doing everything he promised despite what scott pelly thinks of Him.

QuoteYou're simply trying to distract me from the competency that actually matters from the competency that got Trump into the white house.

No I am simply pointing out that if your information source said he was NOT competent enough to win the white house is also wrong when they evaluate his competency while in the white house. I am pointing to an obvious bias.

QuoteYou seem to think that the presidential election is a game of football. That it doesn't matter who wins as long as your opponents lose. No, dearheart, like it or not we're in this together. If Trump fucks up, he fucks it up for everyone. You are part of the political partisanship that has been poisoning America for years.

Actually i don't.
That is why I supported obama when He won, and did not riot in the streets, break windown or did an unwashed sit in. My belief is in the system and the ultimate balance we must strike between right and left to remain in the middle otherwise if it leans too far one way or too far the other way we will have civil war again. Trump is bringing balance back to the country by undoing the hard left crap barrack castro obama put us into.

QuoteNo, I meant YOU'RE nitpicking, you idiot. Sure, the president doesn't rule alone, but he sets the tone of his term, is the spokesperson for the US to foreign powers, is responsible for carrying out the law, and so on. He has a huge responsibility that I don't think that Trump can handle.

Not if he doesn't have the support of the house or senate. look at what lame duck obama did when he didn't have the support needed to secure his legacy.. He issued one presidential order after another, which was all undone almost by the end of trumps first 100 days. I would say without the support of both houses of congress the president get's neturalized as per obama.

QuoteHe can't even kill Obamacare, the thing he promised to do in his first 100 days.

Because as I pointed out he does not have both sides to agree on the replacement. we have only tried to repeal and replace at the same time. All side agree on the repeal. So trump held a luncheon yesterday urging congress to forgo their august break and get obama care replaced. Again because that power is not in his wheel house.

QuoteNot that this surprises me. Obamacare is simply the healthcare plan that the Republicans wished they passed.

:biglaugh: the "Dims" who passed the spearheaded obama care are now running from it like rats from a ship... why would you think the reps want anything to do with it?

QuoteThe rules that Obama enacted did not start with his lame duck period. They were years in the making. Some of it had been the works since before he was elected, and only in his administration were those rules and regulations worked out. That simple fact gives them the inertia that allows them to survive a prolonged period of not being enforced by Trump.

such as???

QuoteNAFTA is a treaty. Only congress can strike it down at this point. I'm not optimistic.

there are three countries involved with NAFTA if trump can provoke one of the other two to back off the agreement he does not need congress for spit. His wavering and backing off, and demand for mexico to pay for the wall all seems like a tactic to get mexico to play it's big nafta chip.

QuoteSo you admit that all of the positive economic effects were not due to Trump, but to Obama. Concession accepted.

not obama moron but the whole presidential process. there are certain things that just happen in a presidency that would happen if a trained dog was running the country. the simple minded do give the president the credit for being right place right time, but the wise see it as apart of the office.

QuoteGive it time for them to... what? Mess it up? I think your priorities are a bit skewed, cupcake.

You don't have a choice out side a coup. so yeah wait.

QuoteNo, he promised to repeal Obamacare and put in place something better in his first 100 days.

with the congression support he had, he could of at the time. Mater of fact he signed a bll for the repeal and replacement of obama care as promised, but the house would not pass it. in that act alone he full filled his end of the promise. Even so now he he keeps working on a simple repeal before the end of august.

QuoteHe's failed that. GG.
That's odd. I thought Obamacare was PASSED in congress, and still is the law of the land.

no it was an exectuitive order later ratified by the supreme court as being 'legal' and now needs an act of congress to repeal (which ultimately means a defunding of Obama care.)

QuoteConsider the source. Russia has always had dick-envy for the US, and saw in Trump the opportunity to bring their long-time enemy down a peg or two. Why are you assuming that any of the above is the truth, when it comes from a power that has interest in seeing the US diminish in power?

Because rather than deny, they defend their actions. (burning servers drilling out hard drives, and the Anthony wiener back up lap top confirmed many of the deals made that wiki-leaks (the ones the Russians supposedly used to air out Clinton's dirty laundry. which the owner of wikileaks said it was a clinton insider (which one committed suicide by shooting himself in the back 6 times died shortly there after.) The clinto stuff the unrainium 1 deal where she made 147 million dollars by colluding with the russians to sell them 25% of our stock pile is a well documented deal she did while secetary of state that benfitted her foundation. There is no dispute there. but why not???
even the ny times soft balled this story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Russian collusion to buy north american unraium stockpiles while cashing in a secretary of state. That is an act of treason, and if it were anyone else they would be in gitmo with the rest of the terrorists.

What did trump do? After 6 months of hard scrutiny... had a meeting as president with the Russian president which went over an hour.

QuoteImperial China had a saying, "Don't let a barbarian know they have something you want. Value nothing that comes from outside."
No, to benefit us.

So you are wanting to take a 1800 year old saying and dismiss 1/3 of the world's population? good think Trump has more sense than that.

QuoteIf we oust a hard-line Israli leader, the palistinians might finally calm down and ease tensions a bit. This actually hurts Iran, because that country has been using anti-Zionist rhetoric to bolster its own position for ages.

two things... It's not just anti zionist, it is DEATH TO AMERICA and they don't mean Canada or mexico.
2 Obama used state money to try and manipulate a foreign election.. How is what obama has done and been documented any different that what you accuse puttin of doing?

QuoteEh, because it's bullshit?
This coming from a self-professed retard and personal tool of God.

who can appreciate intelligence even if it is not in the scope of my own beliefs. something "smart people" can't seem to do where you come from.

Quote*Cough* Obamacare.
Trump even has explicitly said that he would preserve some provisions of Obamacare.

Again He wrote a bill for it complete removal and replacement.

QuoteThere is a permanent sea-change here, dude.
Is that the lie they keep feeding you? We've been using the Alberta tar sands as a source of syncrude since 1978. It's been producing 1.8 million barrels per day since 2012, and the US imports 1 million barrels of that. How do you think that oil ends up in the US? Are they transported via well-wishes and pixie dust? Do the Canadian geese load them up on their migration? No, it gets transported via trucks and other means of transport.

citation please

QuoteThen why were oil tankers coming from Alaska? Don't you remember the Exxon Valdez? Why was it in the area to have its guts ripped open by a reef, spilling about 10 mil barrels, if it wasn't there to ship oil to California? Oh, right. It's because it was profitable to ship oil from Alaska.

glob.. the alaskan pipe line was completed in 77 or 78 the valdez hook up in southern alaska in the early 90s where the pipe line ENDS!!! and was to ship it to Ca if I remember right. The norther alaskan artic Where the pipline begins would crumble every oil tanker they sent up there. If you think differently citation please.

QuoteThe trade imbalanace with the asian countries began LONG before and without the TPP, sugar.

So? not apart of the topic. the further impalance and to it's projected degree the TTP would levy on the US as a jobs killer is the topic.

QuoteRemember a very important point: We hadn't signed it yet. That's why it was easy to back out.

because that is what lame ducks do. they want to make a lasting legacy but not a bad one so the hesitate when a decision is split.

QuoteIf we had signed the damn thing, it would have the force of law. Therefore, the migrations of jobs overseas is NOT the fault of the TPP, and one of the goals of the TPP was to correct this disparity, but Trump has pissed that away. Moron.

premature ejaculation.. that what you paragraph was. You are doing a victory lap before you even got the date.
I did not say the tpp was the reason for the jobs that left went. The reason the jobs that left went (the big/yuge companies) could save billions via cheap labor and minimal shipping costs in return. That's a done deal. what is left on the table are the intermediate companies and even some of the larger small companies have trillions left on the trade table that would then also go overseas as raw material and logistic sourcing all consolidates and with this treaty becomes cheaper than doing anything here. It is a one way turn the US into a consumer only country deal.

Quote
Empty posturing. My conclusions come from many sources, including many of the same ones you use. Only I don't believe any of them at face value.

Empty posturing. then post your sources high light your references and post your thoughts you faker. or conceed the point when I call for a citation. I am asking for the thought process the reference material anything abouve "you say so" If you can provide that, then speaking with you is not much better than speaking with a child who thinks their way is better "because."

QuoteI think about them, and make the ideas my own, if they're worth anything. It is simply bizzare to think that a treaty that had not been signed into law caused the migrations of jobs overseas, a phenomena that had been happening for decades prior. It just doesn't work as an example of good reasoning.

The reason we have manufacturing at all right now on any large scale is because of the few restrictions in place on shipping/trade taxes. take that away and it becomes a no brainer for those left. it was a no brainer when you had 500 workers doing a union job for 40 bucks an hour when when kim jung will do the same job for 7 dollars a week plus transports and fees. take that last barrier away and everything else now goes.

QuoteYou seem to be envisioning that we're shelling out money into some black hole if we were to comply with the accords. We're not. We're going to be paying that money to workers to change the basis of our economy away from dirty technologies. All that money is going into the US economy. That's the thing Trump doesn't understand. What you don't understand.

Ah... no. We will be paying foreign governements to convert to 'green' based on their word... Now if you are a forgein leader and get paid in donkeys then the US writes you a billion dollar check and says with no oversite buy wind generators for your people... I say the US writes you a check because no other country is involved aside from support. China won't even support this accord. till 5 more years has elapsed. meaning they refuse to make or consider any climate changes. And because China is not the worlds industrial base, it becomes the world biggest polluter. so from a carbon emission standpoint what does it matter.. unless money from the US is the actual prize.

Quote
Do you? I've read the damn thing. You know, what it actually says instead of the lies your sources feed you. There's no mention in the accord of specific targets. The US is allowed to be as pessimistic as he wants as to its targets, though that might piss off the other signatories. There's also no means of enforcement. It's non-binding. It's simply a promisary note.

And again if we do not intend to honor the note, why sign?

You know there are only two countries who did not sign the US and honduras. They did not sign because they felt they were not going to get enough money fro the us to impliment what they were required in green retrofit.

QuoteLet's for the sake of argument assume that the above is true. Who's going to be selling them that green tech?

China as they are the world's leader in production of wind gens and solar cells.

QuoteThanks to Trump, not us.

or china

QuoteGreen tech just doesn't pop out of nowhere.

it comes from china
http://www.china-greentech.com/re

QuoteSomeone has to make it for those 2nd and 3rd world countries to buy from.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-tech-china.html China 2 largest green tech producer/US number 17

QuoteIf we played our cards right, we could get all that money back and then some, and we would be in a good position to sell that tech to the rest of the world.

where do you come up with this crap... it's like you read nothing, listen to no one except npr and will not take a bit of info unless it passes your indoctrination.

QuoteBuilding an industry like that teaches you how to build that kind of tech faster, cheaper, and better, something that you see consistently across history. A businessman would see the opportunity for what it was and jumped at the chance. But then, Trump is not a good businessman.

A businessman also knows where to focus his efforts. like in coal something this country has billions of tons of..

QuoteShow me where any government would be directed to "crash in" on the energy market. At best, your own source would make it so that 8 trillion of our money would be earmarked for the first green company to set up a significant international trade in that tech, and it might as well be our own people if we get in on it fast enough. Any gold the government would give them would be to develop their production for an international market, which quite frankly is something they would want to do anyway, but with our own money in the pot it would be a great incentive to do so. Now the incentive is less because we don't have a stake in the pot.

and where does the US source this 8 trillion dollars? before your trickle down economics has a chance to back fill all of our coffers?

QuoteI really don't get this near-allergic level aversion to government playing any part in helping the economy along.
I know he didn't, idiot. He simply failed to recognize the opportunity to incentivise green tech through issuing what amounts to a moon challenge. In the beginning of the 60's, we didn't have the tech to go to the moon, and only had something like 15 minutes of manned spaceflight experience when Kennedy made his famous challenge. Nine years later we had beaten the Russians to the moon. It was because Kennedy had set the tone, had challenged the US to make the moon shot. Now, we see Trump shying away from the challenge of changing the world economy away from fossil fuels. It's short-sighted and chilling to the green industry to see that.

At what cost... And subsquently, who else could afford to Go? Meaning at the end of 10 years we have a perfect sustainable alternitive energy source... but at what cost and who else could afford it? so then unless we are giving away trips to the moon what good will this technology do? it is about as functional as the cern super collider.

QuoteIt's "cogs", and you're wrong. The cogs are the machinery that was developed after the founding fathers' time. Laws passed by congress are not specific enough to be actionable.

citation please.

QuoteIt's really up to the execuative branch to figure out what it needs to do to make sure the laws are carried out. Hence, it creates the rules and procedures to make laws actionable and give them real force. It is not done by execuative order or any such rot. It is done by committee, with consultation of experts and the public and all interested parties to make sure all interests are served in execution of the law. They are categorically not Obama enacting "personal legislation".

again too far. A cog of the presidency has nothing to do with the president. it is an automactic function of the government. the president is simply at the right place at the right time. What you are describing are the legacy factors of the president. that is not what I am describing. What I am describing comes from the congress and senate as well as the SCOTUS. These bills, budgets and laws are passed all the time without input or alteration from the president. that is a cog of governement.

Quote"Trivial as the stock market"? :histerical: Any investment expert will tell you the stock market is one of the surest ways to make money, in the long run. But you have to be in it for the long run.

again give me 4 average people who made a billion dollars in the stock market.

QuoteEmpty posturing. You have yet to support that charge. The above doesn't dismiss the fact that he still couldn't outperform the stock market â€" that I could do something extremely simple-minded and would have still beaten the pants off him.

Empty posturing. I have asked you to demonstrate your hypothesis by providing 4 examples of your claim.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 20, 2017, 01:12:21 AM

QuoteThe above doesn't dismiss the fact that he drove six of his previous businesses into the ground.

again I could only find 4 examples

QuoteHe's either had a charmed life, or has had good financial advisers that have kept his money safe.

or you own separate businesses. doesn't take a wizard of wall street to figure out that one.

QuoteAnd even if he was smart with money, it doesn't necessarily translate well into a realm where your performance is not judged by how much money you make like the presidency. And may be in fact frowned upon.

Are you serious?!?!?! What is GDP? without it what happens to the country. How much GDP growth happend under o-bammie? >2% 1/2 of every president's worst GDP numbers that came before him. Without a strong business sense of someone in the higher ups, this government would quickly fail.
How much better to have a sucessful business man to run this country and take back what others have given away.

QuoteWhich puzzles me why Trump is so concerned about portraying himself as a smart person. Hmmm....

why do you?

Quote
Who cares about how much revenue defines a big business, with some arbitrary threshold?

because stupid people would then say a billionare's company is considered to be a small business.

QuoteThat's just debating semantics, and semantics debates are boring.

Actually semantics literally define our world, if you can not regulate your speech to fit commonly accepted definations then you setting everyone up for an arguement.

QuoteThe fact remains that Trump could have vanished five years ago and nobody would have noticed he was gone.

i disagree, billionares do not disappear and no one notices.

QuoteAlso, the fact that he has three billion in net worth doesn't mean that he has three billion in revenue.

not a trivial amount of money no matter how you divide it.

QuoteA simple calculation shows that, in the fifty someodd years he spent building that 3 billion (assuming net worth, assets minus debt) gives an average revenue of 60 million yearly... which means that he doesn't qualify as a big business by your own cited standard.
Funny. But that's not what I meant and you know it.

he was worth 4.5 billion last year, he lost 800 million in the campaign yet he did not care as His life was going to be about america from then on out. Meanwhile clinton made nearly 250 million dollars in her run.
how does that work exactly?

Regaurdless his net worth has fluctuated from bankruptcy to 11.8 billion to where it is today. your simplistic calculation does not take into effect everything that trump has made and lost.

Quote


"Trump’s Taj Mahal opened in April 1990 in Atlantic City, but six months later, “defaulted on interest payments to bondholders as his finances went into a tailspin,” The Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow found. In July 1991, Trump’s Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. He could not keep up with debts on two other Atlantic City casinos, and those two properties declared bankruptcy in 1992. A fourth property, the Plaza Hotel in New York, declared bankruptcy in 1992 after amassing debt.

PolitiFact uncovered two more bankruptcies filed after 1992, totaling six. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004, after accruing about $1.8 billion in debt. Trump Entertainment Resorts also declared bankruptcy in 2009, after being hit hard during the 2008 recession.

Why the discrepancy? Perhaps this will give us an idea: Trump told Washington Post reporters that he counted the first three bankruptcies as just one."

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

:biglaugh: I see you are quick on the draw with the citations when they finally support you.

QuoteI am so tempted to put a picture of Count Von Count here. Ah-ah-ah!
The fact remains, they are not his holdings. They are not administered by him. They are not indicative of his net worth or his ability to make money.
Which "King David had to build a temple out of obligation," is a fair description of. Unless you meant, "King David laid every stone of the temple himself," which of course is stupid.
Yeah, and I have a google that turned up the following gem:

KING DAVID DID NOT BUILD THE TEMPLE!!! His Son Solomon Did!! David collected the money to build the temple

QuoteDonald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades â€" and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them.

I can promise you becase of stupid people law suits are apart of doing business.

Quote
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

I don't believe for a second that a man who is willing to skip out on paying ordinary people has a charitable bone in his body.

just because someone produces a bill does not oblige you to pay it. that is all that is needed for a law suit. see the outcoe for the truth

Yeah, and the Clintons got all their money, legitimately (snicker)

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 18, 2017, 02:26:13 PM
CEO-What? it's been 6 months, give it sometime.

He said "from the start".  It's been 6 months and all we've seen are tweets.

QuoteHave you ever been on twitter?

No, I don't waste my time on religion or twitter - same nonsense.

Quotedo you know how it works??

DUH!  I started on ARPANET, so yes, I know how just about every site on the internet works.

Quotewhen your limited to 64 characters it is hard to say something proud everyday unless you have a team of writers work behind you to prop you up.

Obama didn't seem to have that problem.  Oh, wait, he spoke to reporters, he didn't tweet nonsense.

Quotehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/9/illegal-immigration-southwest-border-down-70-pct/
Or the washington post, the ny time or like below NPR: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/27/525584236/in-trumps-first-100-days-a-dramatic-reduction-in-immigration

It's summer - Mexican illegal immigration always drops this time of year.  Next thing you'll be praising him for melting the snow after the winter ended.

QuoteKind make the spelling of boarder a smaller secondary BS factoid when you get the primary sourcing of the subject matter wrong, huh?

Primary sourcing ... like not knowing that illegal immigration in hot trucks lessens in the summer?

QuoteYou: Hey man let me get that speck out of your eye, you seem all sorts of unrespectible running around with that speck..

Me: then how about you take that plank out of your eye before you start digging in mine.

Oh, a Bible reference.  I'm defeated.

 

Quotewhich is why I included links to source material that included graphs which describes last years numbers... you know last year at this time.. when the temp was the same, meaning the risk was the same. :winkle:

WOW!  Nice cherry-picking - and completely wrong.  The first link was from January to April, the second one was about the same timeframe - his first hundred days.

Lie much?

QuoteThanks obama for selling out our gold reserves to china which put us in the spot where now china is calling into question the power of the Dollar as the world lead currency.

You failed history?  Recent history?The dollar has been sliding as the world's currency [i[due to the fact that Europe is using Petrodollars as the base[/i].  For years.

Quote2/3's of the world still runs on coal

Not on ours, though.

QuoteEven vast swaths of China still depend on coal.

And mine their own.  How does that bring the coal industry back to the US?

QuoteWhich is the oppsite of what obammie promised. "Keep your doctor, keep you plan, prices will be cut in 1/2"

And was the first year.  Then the Republicans modified it because you can't have Obama get anything right.  Right?

QuoteHe started with a million dollar loan.

To run the family's business.  He's lost 4 total fortunes so far.

QuoteI can promise you no one starts a business to have it fail in the expectations to make a billion dollars as the net result.

Failed economics too, huh?

So where's that post with objective proof that your god objectively exists?

Quote from: Colanth on July 20, 2017, 07:31:37 PM

Jonnie come lately and those comming after him. i am not wanting to talk politics on this thread, please start another thread rather than derail this one any further.

Colanth said "DUH!  I started on ARPANET, so yes, I know how just about every site on the internet works."

I understand.  I was watching a TV show on the Apollo Space Program and they mentioned the primitive software available in 1967.  I started college in 1968 and took some computer classes in 1969.  Punch cads in Fortran and all that.  I didn't realize at the time that I was on the cutting edge.

I was good at programming, but didn't realize the importance of it.  I was not only good at programing, I was the "go to" guy for debugging other student's programs.  My life would have been entirely different had I pursued that subject.

I had a great career otherwhere, but I think I missed out on my best talent.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 22, 2017, 02:48:29 AM
Colanth said "DUH!  I started on ARPANET, so yes, I know how just about every site on the internet works."

I understand.  I was watching a TV show on the Apollo Space Program and they mentioned the primitive software available in 1967.  I started college in 1968 and took some computer classes in 1969.  Punch cads in Fortran and all that.  I didn't realize at the time that I was on the cutting edge.

I was good at programming, but didn't realize the importance of it.  I was not only good at programing, I was the "go to" guy for debugging other student's programs.  My life would have been entirely different had I pursued that subject.

I had a great career otherwhere, but I think I missed out on my best talent.

You self pat on head as good as Drich does ;-)

Quote from: Drich0150 on July 21, 2017, 04:19:40 PM
Jonnie come lately and those comming after him. i am not wanting to talk politics on this thread, please start another thread rather than derail this one any further.

Derailing?  Did you notice that the site is named atheistforums?  Quoting the Bible is derailing the whole site.  Are you man enough to take your own advice?

Quote from: Cavebear on July 22, 2017, 02:48:29 AMI was good at programming, but didn't realize the importance of it.  I was not only good at programing, I was the "go to" guy for debugging other student's programs.  My life would have been entirely different had I pursued that subject.

I had a great career otherwhere, but I think I missed out on my best talent.

I think I can tell you how different it would have been, since I did go that route.

And I couldn't retire.  I was drawing Social Security, I was on Medicare, but I was still going to work every day.  Until it got too painful (spinal arthritis), so I had to quit going to work.  (I still write software for myself.)  Once you get that "AHAH!  I finally solved it" feeling, you don't want to give it up.

Quote from: Colanth on July 22, 2017, 04:45:59 PM
Derailing?  Did you notice that the site is named atheistforums?  Quoting the Bible is derailing the whole site.  Are you man enough to take your own advice?

Drich thinks this is mostly for theists to yell about their religious superstitions?  Doesn't he realize that this is a place for atheists to talk to each other about many subjects they have in common or not?

Quote from: Baruch on July 22, 2017, 07:19:39 AM
You self pat on head as good as Drich does ;-)

It's not patting yourself on the head to claim that you know how just about every site works when you've written ... oh, I don't know, hundreds at least, maybe more.  Websites aren't as "ununderstandable" as many people think they are, it's just code.

Quote from: Colanth on July 22, 2017, 04:53:33 PM
It's not patting yourself on the head to claim that you know how just about every site works when you've written ... oh, I don't know, hundreds at least, maybe more.  Websites aren't as "ununderstandable" as many people think they are, it's just code.

I may believe you code ... but Cavebear claiming what a good coder he would have been, had he chosen to ... sorry.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 22, 2017, 04:52:55 PM
Drich thinks this is mostly for theists to yell about their religious superstitions?  Doesn't he realize that this is a place for atheists to talk to each other about many subjects they have in common or not?

You've only been here almost a year, so I forgive you for not recognizing Drich.  We've had him here under different names, wearing different bodies, since I joined 5 years ago, and from what I saw back then, people were already tired of "Drich-like" behavior.  The "the Bible is right, so ..." kind.  He may think that he's coming up with something new, but most of us have seen it before - over and over and ... ad real nauseam.

There was a time I visited religious sites and asked questions.  OH how they howled.  How DARE I invade their space they screamed.  Doesn't seem to bother them in reverse.

I'm not the least surprised.  They are all one way.  Like some dictators who say elections are fine.  "One election, one time" if they win.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 22, 2017, 05:00:59 PMThere was a time I visited religious sites and asked questions.  OH how they howled.  How DARE I invade their space they screamed.  Doesn't seem to bother them in reverse.

Of course not.  The bible is true and real.  there are no atheists, just people who believe in God but refuse to admit it.  (I don't know when you gave up religion, if you ever had any, but I've been seeing this stuff [not from family - thank someone's god that my father was also an atheist and didn't shove any of that religion stuff down my throat] since I realized, at the age of 6, that I couldn't make myself believe in this "God" creature.)

Quote from: Colanth on July 22, 2017, 05:06:07 PM
Of course not.  The bible is true and real.  there are no atheists, just people who believe in God but refuse to admit it.  (I don't know when you gave up religion, if you ever had any, but I've been seeing this stuff [not from family - thank someone's god that my father was also an atheist and didn't shove any of that religion stuff down my throat] since I realized, at the age of 6, that I couldn't make myself believe in this "God" creature.)

I was fortunate also.  My father was secular, he simply ignored religion.  My mother was very marginal Methodist.  So I had no pressure from family.  I only came to religion as an adult, when I had a chance to know what I was getting into.

Quote from: Baruch on July 22, 2017, 05:09:36 PM
I was fortunate also.  My father was secular, he simply ignored religion.  My mother was very marginal Methodist.  So I had no pressure from family.  I only came to religion as an adult, when I had a chance to know what I was getting into.

I was fortunate that my parents (and grandparents) were agnostic.  They could have been atheistic, but the subject just did not come up much and to this day (all parents and grandparents dead) I still regard them as agnostic.  They let me pretty much figure the religious side of life on my own. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 22, 2017, 05:46:24 PM
I was fortunate that my parents (and grandparents) were agnostic.  They could have been atheistic, but the subject just did not come up much and to this day (all parents and grandparents dead) I still regard them as agnostic.  They let me pretty much figure the religious side of life on my own.

There is something to be said for parental direction and tradition, but it isn't American.

playin catchup again....

"Obamacare" - Patient protection and affordable care act of 2010 was a law passed by Congress not an executive order.

Obama didn't get to sign TPP because the majority of the D party were opposed to it (I downloaded it to read it, but never got around to it. don't know what's in it)

To be more explicit, no one becomes a billionaire without stealing from their customers or their employees.

Drich can think what he wants of the Ds. My own opinion is that the rank and file of the R party are drooling idiots and the leaders are devil worshipers; even when I was still in church. You have to be a split-personality to be a Christian and a Republican at the same time with such conflicting ideologies.

I suppose that after the truck in Texas today with a group of dead and dying illegals in the back, people will think a little bit before trying to cross the border in the summer. (Is a boarder crossing a Catholic praying before eating?)

TPP, TISA etc say ... corporations rule the world.  Legislatures can only pass legislation that trans-national corporations like.  What is not to like?

There was a UN plan in 2000, that said that the population of Europe was declining, not enough babies.  The answer was to bring in millions of Africans and Near Eastern folks (actually many Pakistanis pretending to be Near Eastern).

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 22, 2017, 05:46:24 PM
I was fortunate that my parents (and grandparents) were agnostic.  They could have been atheistic, but the subject just did not come up much and to this day (all parents and grandparents dead) I still regard them as agnostic.  They let me pretty much figure the religious side of life on my own.

My family has been at least agnostic back to my paternal grandparents (my maternal ones weren't).  I simply extended the idea to the logical conclusion.  It did help that the more religious some few relatives were, the dumber they were about nearly everything else in life, too.